JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Raibag dismissed the suit O.S. No. 151/2013 by his judgment dated 16.06.2016 and hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. Referring to the parties with respect to their rank in the suit, the material facts, precisely stated, are as below:

2. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the children of the 4th plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. The 4th plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 3. The suit is in respect of agricultural land to an extent of 2 acres in R. Sy. No. 554/B/P-1 of Raibag village (referred hereafter as suit property). On 15.10.1993, the Tahsildar of Raibag Taluk granted the suit property to the 2nd defendant imposing a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. In the year 2012, noticing that the 1st defendant was making an attempt to get his name entered in the RTC of the suit property, the 2nd defendant objected to it, but the Tahsildar certified the entry in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs challenged the Tahsildar's order by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi. They came to know that the 1st defendant obtained the mutation entry in his favour on the basis of compromise decree in a suit filed in the year 1997. The 1st defendant tried to disturb the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property taking advantage of the revenue records standing in his name, and there arose some differences of opinions between the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant and this resulted in the plaintiffs instituting a suit O.S. No. 421/2012 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Raibag claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of their share. This suit ended in a compromise holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 4/5th share in the suit property. When the plaintiffs sought to get their names entered in the revenue records on the strength of the compromise decree and possession over their 4/5th share, the revenue authorities were not ready to enter their names in the record of rights and that the 2nd defendant too objected for entering the plaintiffs' names in the Register of Record of Rights. The 1st defendant denied the title and therefore the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration of their title to the extent of 4/5th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction and disturbance to their possession of their share in the suit property.

3. The 2nd defendant did not contest the suit, but the 1st defendant in his written statement contended that the suit property was the self-acquired property of the 2nd defendant having acquired it by virtue of a grant in his favour by the Tahsildar. He instituted a suit, O.S. No. 266/1997 against 2nd defendant and in the said suit, there was compromise to the effect that the 2nd defendant relinquished all his right over the suit property in his favour and thereby he took over the possession of the suit property. He could not get his name entered in the revenue records immediately after the compromise was accepted because when grant was made in favour of 2nd defendant, a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years had been imposed. Noticing this prohibition as to alienation in the grant order, the Tahsildar entered his name in the columns, 'Other Rights' and 'Cultivator's name' of the RTC. After completion of fifteen years period, he applied for accepting the mutation in his name. Thus his name was entered in the RTC. The 2nd defendant challenged the acceptance of mutation in the name of 1st defendant by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, but it was also dismissed. The 1st defendant stated that the plaintiffs have suppressed all these material facts inspite of having knowledge of the same. He also stated that when the compromise in O.S. No. 266/1997 was accepted, the 4th plaintiff was not married to the 2nd defendant and that their marriage took place three years later. The 1s