The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of valid documentation and unchallenged possession in establishing ownership rights, as well as the requirement for legal challenges to be pursued in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The plaintiffs are before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dtd. 15/7/2014 passed in RA No.53 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity), whereunder, the judgment and decree dtd. 23/6/2012 passed in OS No.93 of 2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC at Periyapatna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for brevity) was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by allowing the appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit OS No.93 of 2007 against the defendants for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The schedule property is described as 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/1A (Old No.1).

4. It is contended that plaintiff No.1 - Shivappa purchased the schedule property from defendant No.1 and his mother Akkamma under the registered sale deed dtd. 20/1/1969, which was sold to meet the family necessities and to repay the loan amount incurred by them. Since from the date of sale deed, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Akkamma, the mother of defendant No.1 died and the other defendants are her legal representatives. The plaintiffs partitioned the properties belonging to their family and the schedule property had fallen to the share of plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.1 also signed the said partition deed. Since about 1 1/2 years earlier to filing of the suit, the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. On verifying the record of rights, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants managed to enter the joint khata in their names along with the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 filed an application to the Tahsildar concerned to enter his name in the khata. In the meantime, defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed the suit for partition before the Civil Court and therefore, the Tahsildar rejected the application filed by plaintiff No.1. It is stated that defendant No.1 with an intention to grab the valuable property belonging to the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the schedule property.

5. Defendant No.2 has filed his written statement denying the contention taken by the plaintiffs. It is denied that the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dtd. 20/1/1969. It is contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief. It is stated that the schedule property bearing Sy.No.1/1A totally measures 5 acres 24 guntas and originally belonged to the grand father of the defendants. Since for last 40 years, it is standing in the names of the defendants. The mother of the defendants was not having any right title, or interest to sell the same. It is also stated that OS No.155 of 2005 was filed by defendant No.2 in respect of the schedule property and the same is still pending for consideration. Therefore, defendant No.2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that as on the date of suit, they were in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendants over the suit schedule properties?

3. What order or decree? Additional issue framed on 12/8/2008: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute o