IMPORTANT POINT
Caveat alone by itself cannot be said to be starting point of limitation.

Cilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.— The appellants herein are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.104 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, The said suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein against respondent No.10 and the appellants for perpetual injunction initially and later converted to a suit for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court, but reversed in appeal by the appellate court. Hence, this appeal by the appellants, who are purchasers from respondent No.101 defendant No.1 in the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. Facts in brief are as follows:

(a) Plaintiffs claim to be absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property having acquired the same by virtue of a registered Will, dated 19.11.1997, Ex.A2 executed by paternal grandmother of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the schedule property originally belonged to paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs namely Gurukul Narsingappa, who had earlier purchased the property under registered sale deed, dated 20.1.1953, Ex. Al. It is stated that after the death of the grandfather of the plaintiffs, their grandmother came into possession and she executed a Will in favour of plaintiffs. Ex.A2, A4 and A5 are the title deeds and pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the grandmother of the plaintiffs and Exs.A7 to All are cist receipts evidencing payment of land revenue. It is stated that the suit schedule land, which is situated in Jalimanchi village where defendant No.1 is residing, was under continuous possession and enjoyment of the grandmother of the plaintiffs, which is reflected in Adangal entries Ex.A6. It is alleged that defendant No.1 had nothing to do with the property but had sought issuance of pattadar passbook on the basis of documents claimed by him. Plaintiffs state that they have received a Caveat Ex.AI2, alleging to have purchased the property and having transferred the title to defendant Nos.2 and 3/appellants herein. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for perpetual injunction initially.

(b) Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and stated that the grandmother of the plaintiffs had neither right, title nor interest over the suit schedule property and consequently the Will set up by the plaintiffs has no value. The truth or genuineness of the Will was also denied. Defendant No.1 had further stated that the grandfather of the plaintiffs sold the property to one Dandu Pedda Lakshmaiah, father of defendant No.1 in 1958 by means of a revenue transfer and entries in the revenue record were accordingly made and after the demise of the father of defendant No.1, it was claimed that defendant No.1 was continued to be enjoyer and possessor. The suit schedule land, an extent of Ac.11-95 cents in Survey No.189, in Namlikal Village of Adhoni Mandal of Kurnool District, is said to have been sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to the extent of Ac.2-50 cents and further to defendant No.3 to the extent of Ac.1-50 cents under registered sale deeds, dated 17.2.2003, Exs.B13 and B14 respectively. Defendant No.1, therefore, states that he continued to be in possession of the balance land and defendant Nos.2 and 3 with respect to their purchased land. He also places reliance on revenue record i.e., 10(1) Account and ROR Extract Exs.B8 and B9 and Xerox copy of pattadar passbook-Ex.B10. It was also clear that the grandfather of the plaintiffs left behind wife, three daughters and son. But none of those persons are made parties to the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also claimed that defendant No.1 had’ filed a Caveat denying title of the plaintiffs and, as such, suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. Defendant No.1 also pleaded that in the land reforms proceedings, the grandfather of the plai