Proceeding instituted bonafide in a court having no jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. Having lost before both the Courts below, they have filed this second appeal.

2.The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession of their share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and for other reliefs.

3.According to the plaintiffs, originally one Mohammed Meeran Rowther filed a suit in O.S. No.39 of 1958 for partition and separate possesion. On 9-10-1964, a preliminary decree was passed, whereunder, it was declared that the said Mhoamed Meeran Rowther would be entitled to 1/5 share in all the suit properties, namely, 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.

4.The defendants in the suit O.S. No.39 of 1958 filed appeal before the appellate Court in A.S. No.39 of 1965. Since the first plaintiff died in that suit on 10-7-1965, the other plaintiffs were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, one Khader Mohammed Ibrahim filed an application in I.A. No.911 of 1965 to implead himself as one of the residuary heirs of the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly, he was impleaded on 10-2-1966. Similarly, pending appeal, one Mohammed Sikkandar, claiming himself to be a purchaser from the plaintiff/Mohamed Meeran Rowther, under a sale deed dated 23-6-1965, filed a petition in I.A. No.48 of 1966 to get himself impleaded as a party to the suit. The said Sikkander sold the properties which were purchased by him on 24-1-1967 to the defendants 1 to 3 in the present suit. Ultimately, in the appeal which was disposed of 2-12-1967. While confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court in other respects, the appellate Court modified the decree to the effect that the plaintiffs therein were entitled to 1/5 share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and 1/10 share in 'C' schedule property.

5.When the matter was taken up to this Court in S.A. No.722 of 1968, ultimately, the matter was compromised between the parties, except in respect of Khader Mohammed Ibrahim, who claimed as residuary heir of the deceased plaintiff and the same was dismissed on 19-4-1973. It was held in that judgement of this Court that the compromise decree will not bind the said Khader Mohammed Ibrahim.

6.Thereafter, the said Khader Mohammed Ibrahim filed an application in I.A. No 455 of 1975 in the earlier suit in O.S. No.39 of 1958 to divide the properties and allot the share to him as a residuary heir of the deceased plaintiff and pass a final decree. This was dismissed on merits on 27-7-1977.

7.As against the said order in I.A. No.455 of 1975, the said Khader Mohammed Ibrahim filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P. No.2436 of 1978. Pending revision, he died and therefore, the present plaintiffs, namely, the wife and children of the said Khader Mohammed Ibrahim were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased. Ultimately, on 1-9-1982, the said revision was dismissed by this Court without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners in the revision, if any, to file a fresh suit. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed on 12-4-1983 seeking the abovesaid reliefs.

8.The defendants 2 and 3 contested the suit in O.S. No.253 of 1983 (the present suit), claiming their right under the sale deed dated 23-6-1965 executed by the Mohammed Meeran in favour of Sikkander and the sale deed executed by Sikkander in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 under Ex.B-5 and also claimed adverse possession, thereby, prescribed title by ouster. They further contended that the suit is barred by res-judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and limitation.

9.After framing necessary issues, in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-32 were marked. Ultimately, the trial Court found that the defendants 2 and 3 acquired prescriptive title by ouster over the suit properties by adverse possession and the suit is barred b