The claim for property ownership is barred by limitation due to prior disputes and failure to act within stipulated time frames for legal recourse.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. ARAVIND, J.

This appeal is filed by plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 in O.S. No.275/2001 passed by the Court of the Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, as well as the order dated 04.01.2012 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Mysore, in R.A. No. 6/2011.

2. The parties are referred to by their ranks as assigned in the original suit, for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts, as gathered from the pleadings, are that the plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendant seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up any construction on the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property comprises of premises bearing Municipal D. No.46, New No. M-34/1, K.T. Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysore City, measuring East to West 34 feet and North to South 18 feet.

3.1 It is pleaded that the entire property bearing Municipal D. No.46 originally belonged to one N.H. Sangappa, the father of plaintiff No.1 and grandfather of plaintiff No.2. After the demise of N.H. Sangappa, plaintiff No.1's brother, M.S. Nanjappa, instituted a suit in O.S. No.566/1964 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Mysore, seeking a declaration, which ended in a compromise. As per the compromise, plaintiff No.1 was allotted an area measuring 33 feet x 18 feet from out of the entire extent of the property bearing D. No.46 and the remaining portion was retained by M.S. Nanjappa. Subsequently, the wife of M.S. Nanjappa, namely, Smt. Bharamakka, mortgaged the suit property in favour of one H.N. Doddabasappa. Plaintiff No.1 purchased the equity of redemption under the said mortgage, and the defendant’s father late Kaverigowda, was inducted as a tenant in the year 1968. The tenancy in respect of the suit schedule premises was attorned in favour of plaintiff No.1, pursuant to her purchase of the equity of redemption under the deed of mortgage dated 29.08.1969.

3.2 Plaintiff No.1 filed a suit against Kaverigowda, the father of the defendant, in S.C. No.129/1970 for recovery of arrears of rent, which came to be decreed. Late Kaverigowda preferred an appeal before this Court, and the said judgment and decree were set aside and remanded. After the remand, plaintiff No.1 withdrew the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. It is stated that during the pendency of the said suit, the vendor of the defendant, represented by his natural guardian and mother Smt. Bharamakka, along with her son Shivaswamy, sold the property in favour of plaintiff No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 10.04.1971. It is further stated that possession of the property continued with the tenant late Kaverigowda, the father of the defendant.

3.3. Subsequently, plaintiff No.1 filed a suit against late Kaverigowda in O.S. No.109/1979, which was later renumbered as O.S. No.117/1983, on the file of the II Munsiff, Mysore, seeking a mandatory injunction. However, the said suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

3.4 Late Kaverigowda filed O.S. No.315/1974 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Mysore, against plaintiff No.1 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Further, in the written statement filed by Kaverigowda in O.S. No.117/1983, it was specifically contended that S.N. Raja, son of Smt. Bharamakka, had sold the suit schedule property in his favour under a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1977.

3.5 The plaintiffs have asserted their right, title, a