JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal was Admitted on 16.12.2004 framing the following question of law:

(1) Whether on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary placed before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs were entitled for a decree directing the deletion of names of the defendants from the revenue record in respect of the suit property ?

2. The Appeal remained pending since then and on 16.02.2022, the Court was of the opinion that in addition to the solitary question framed, the following three further questions would arise for consideration in this Appeal

(2) Whether the suit filed by the appellants was barred by limitation ?

(3) Whether the suit could be said to be bad in law in its entirety for non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties ?

(4) Whether the Appellate Court was justified in discarding the documentary evidence of title brought on record on behalf of the appellants, on the ground that there was lack of pleadings ?

3. Based on theses four questions, the Appeal has been urged before me for final disposal. The factual matrix of the matter as gathered from the record indicates that the plaintiffs, who are 3 in number had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1999 against 13 defendants. The suit sought the following reliefs:

(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of the suit property and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property

(b) That this Honourable Court as a consequential relief to the above declaration be pleased to order, or direct by issuing mandatory injunction to delete and/or remove the names of the defendants (or of their ancestors) from the land revenue, survey records pertaining to the suit property viz. Annexure 'C'.

(c) That his Honourable Court, as a consequential relief, be further pleased to issue a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, collies or anybody on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs.

(d) Permission to amend the suit plaint as and when necessary.

(e) Costs of the suit may please be awarded.

(f) Any other equitable relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted.

4. The effective reliefs in the suit were three fold; (i) A declaration that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit property to the exclusion of the defendants; (ii) As a consequential relief of a declaration to that effect, the defendants' names were liable to be removed from the land survey record pertaining to the suit property and (iii) Perpetual injunction restraining their servants and agents and others on their behalf from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession.

5. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings, framed issues on (i) plaintiffs' entitlement to a declaration of exclusive ownership and possession (ii) whether plaintiffs' are entitled to a mandatory injunction, deleting the names of the defendants (iii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a perpetual injunction (iv) whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder (v) whether the suit suffers from delay, laches and is barred by law of limitation.

6. On these issues, the parties went to trial. The suit was dismissed. On the aspect of possession and injunction, the Trial Court held that the testimony showed that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property, yet finding that the plaintiffs have not impleaded all the necessary parties, the declaration could not be granted.

7. On the second issue, the Court held that the mandatory injunction for deletion of the names of the defendants cannot be granted. On the issue of limitation, the Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the suit is not barred by law of limitation.

8. The plaintiffs having admitted that certain necessary parties were not impleaded, the declaration sought was answered against the plaintiffs. As far as the declaration of ownership and the direction to remove the names of the