IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendants were estopped from claiming the sale deed was void due to their failure to challenge it for over 30 years, and their failure to seek the specific relief of declaring the document void under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction are in the alternative possession. It is contended that wet land bearing Sy.No.49 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Malandur village, Anandapuram Hobli, Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District purchased by the father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1949 from one Mastanbi who is the mother of the defendant No.2. It is also the case of plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the revenue entries also stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff. After his death, since the plaintiffs were minors, the property was managed by their uncles Mr.Mohammad Ghouse and Mr.Sheik Makthum Sab. When the plaintiffs have attained their majority started looking after the property and started cultivating the same. It is contended that since 1987-88 and 1988-89, the pahani entries are also stands in the name of plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant with the help of political persons and goonda elements started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.88/1981 against the Mastanbi and the same was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A.No.27/1989 and the same came to be abated after the death of the Mastanbi.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant has appeared and filed written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and Shiek Hussain Sab but denied the other averments including Mastanbi sold the property to the father of the plaintiff. On the other hand it is contended that Mastanbi daughter and son-in-law are cultivating the property and Mastanbi also executed a registered Will. It is contended that therefore the said Bibi Jan who is the daughter of Mastanbi become necessary party. It is contended that the revenue entries are made against the interest of Mastanbi and the same was challenged before the A.C Court and in view of death of Mastanbi, the appeal was abated and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.

5. When the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction earlier suit was numbered as O.S.No.719/1989 and later re-numbered as O.S.No.134/1993. The defendant No.1 has also contended in the written statement that Mastanbi had no power to sell the suit schedule property as her daughters were also entitled to a share and the sale deed under which the plaintiffs were relying upon did not convey any valid title in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 27.10.1994 and against the said judgment and decree dated 27.10.1994, the defendant No.1 along with his wife Bibi Jan filed an appeal in R.A.No.104/1994 before the appellate Court and the appellate Court ordered to implead the name of appellant No.2 i.e., Bibi Jan since she was not a party to the suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.12.1994 and set-aside the judgment and decree and remanded the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to implead Bibi Jan as a party/defendant by filing appropriate application and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. After the remand, the plaintiffs impleaded the Bibi Jan as 2nd defendant in the said suit. The 2nd defendant has also filed a written statement. It is contended that Mastanbi was not the absolute owner of the property and she has no right to sell the suit schedule property. The sale deed executed by Mastanbi was not binding on her daughters.

6. It is contended that originally property belongs