This matter is listed for admission. I have heard the

learned counsel for the appellants.

- 3 -

The

factual

matrix

of

the

case

of

the

plaintiffs/appellants before the Trial Court that they are the

absolute owners of the suit schedule property and hence sought

for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of

permanent injunction and also the contention that defendant is

trying to obstruct the very peaceful possession over the suit

schedule property. Defendant appeared and filed written

statement contending that the suit itself is not maintainable

and the same is also barred by limitation and also suit is hit by

Section 11 of CPC and hence plaintiffs are not entitled for any

relief.

The plaintiffs in order to prove the case examined

himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and

got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P23. On the other hand

defendant examined one witness as DW1 and got marked the

documents Exs.D.1 to D.30. The Trial Court having considered

the material on record comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs

though claims the relief of declaration not substantiated the

same by producing any document and also taken note of claim

of property measuring 22 ft x 23 ft. and also made an

observation that once the plaintiffs comes to the Court with a

- 4 -

specific case that they are the owners of the suit schedule

property they have to prove the said facts by oral and

documentary evidence and the same is not placed before the

Court and also taken note of, in view of the observations made

by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7530/1993, the

plaintiffs have instituted the present suit, but not produced any

document to substantiate their claim that they are the owners

and also taken note of oral testimony of DW1 as well as the

document produced by him that the defendants are the owners

in possession of the suit schedule property and also taken note

of the fact that earlier suit was filed in O.S.No.210/1998 and an

appeal was also filed by the plaintiff in R.A.No.23/2003 and the

same also came to be dismissed.

Having considered the material available on record

answered issue Nos.1 and 2 as negative and issue Nos.3 and 4

as affirmative regarding suit is barred by limitation as well as

the suit itself is not maintainable and answered the other issues

as negative and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said

judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, an appeal is filed

in

R.A.No.77/2009

and

the

First

Appellate

Court

also

considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated

- 5 -

the point whether the appellants proves that the Trial Court has

not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence

and whether the appellants proved that the learned Trial Court

has erred in not considering the fact that the vendor of the

defendant had no title to execute the sale deed and whether

the finding of the Trial Court that defendant is not in physical

possession is erroneous and the First Appellate Court also on

re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence

formulated the points and answered the same as negative in

coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs though sought for the

relief of declaration and specifically contended that they are in

physical possession and enjoyment of the property and failed to

prove the same that earlier also appeal was filed and appeal

was also dismissed and in order to prove the factum that the

plaintiffs are also owners of the property and not substantiated

the same by producing any document in paragraph Nos.19 and

20 and re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence. No

doubt the counsel appearing for the appellants would

vehemently contend that both the Courts are committed an

error in not relying upon the document of Exs.P1 to P23 and no

dispute that there was an observation in Writ Petition

- 6 -

No.7530/1993, liberty was given and accordingly a suit is filed

and the very contention of the appellants counsel that both the

Courts have committed an