To establish property ownership in suits for declaration, plaintiffs must accurately identify and prove the property's description, as discrepancies render claims unprovable.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

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

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. It is the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and they are in actual possession of the schedule property and also it is their case that defendant No.1 has illegally executed a sale deed dated 24.01.2011 in favour of defendant No.2 and the same is not binding on them and defendant No.3 also has illegally mutated the name of defendant No.1 in the house list register pertaining to the suit schedule property. Defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also suit is barred by law of limitation and also the very suit is not maintainable and hence, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of declaration. The Trial Court given an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and accordingly, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and relied upon documents Exs.P1 to P14. On the other hand, defendants examined four witnesses as DWs.1 to 4 and got marked documents Exs.D1 to D4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, discussed issue Nos.1 and 2 together, wherein taken note of sale deed pertains to sale deed of Sy.No.25/5D and in the suit schedule, it is described as 25/P Khanesumari but in the sale deed, it is mentioned as survey number property, but in the pleading throughout it is contended that property is Khanesumari property and while discuss in detail comes to the conclusion that schedule mentioned in Ex.P1 is not tallied with the schedule of the plant. Since plaintiffs are claiming their title and possession over the suit schedule property under Ex.P1 and also taken note of in paragraph No.15 in detail the measurement which is mentioned in the schedule and also in paragraph No.16 relying upon Ex.P2 - endorsement issued by the Kondajji Grama Panchayath and Panchayat Raj had issued an endorsement stating that, they have no authority to change the katha in respect of land comes under the survey number and also in paragraph No.20 detail discussion was made regarding the admission on the part of PW.1 during the course of cross-examination in respect of the description of the property and comes to the conclusion that when the property is not identified, granting of relief of declaration and mandatory injunction does not arise and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.47/2018 and the Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo raise the point for consideration whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that property of the plaintiffs has not been identified and sale deed - Ex.P1 not tallies with the boundary description shown in the paint and whether it requires interference. On re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also the detail discussion made in the appeal, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that a very suit claim is not proved and also taken note of schedule mentioned in Ex.P1, wherein Sy.No.25/5D is mentioned and no records stands in the name of Panchayath records subsequent to the sale deed and also taken note of an endorsement given rejecting the claim for transfer of khata and confirmed the judgment. Being aggrieved by this concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Trial Court has not framed proper issues regar