JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. During the course of the argument, the learned Counsel submits that the appellants are not going to dispute the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2. In view of the submission, the first substantial question of law, i.e. “Whether both the courts have committed a serious error in not noticing that there is no declaration regarding status of plaintiffs and their alleged right over the suit schedule property more particularly in the light of status being seriously disputed?”  framed on 25^th March 2014, stands deleted.

3. Defendants 1, 3 & 4 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19^th February, 2007 passed in Original Suit No.6 of 2002 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Jamakhandi, which is confirmed by the Fast Track Court at Jamakhandi by Judgment dated 12^th September, 2008 passed in Regular Appeal No.20 of 2007.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the rank before the trial court.

5. Facts leading to this appeal are that the plainti