JUDGMENT

1. The appellant who is the plaintiff in OS.No.74/2009 and the appellant in R.A.No.179/2012 is before this Court challenging the concurrent finding in the aforesaid proceedings, seeking for the following reliefs:

"WHEREFORE, the Appellant prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) Call for the record of the proceedings in O.S.No.74/2009 on the ifle of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Gudibande and R.A.No.179/2012 on the file of the Court of Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur;

(ii) Set-aside the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chickballapur in R.A.No.179/2012 and the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (JR.Dn.), Gudibande in O.S.No.74/2009;

(iii) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit in OS.No.74/2009 against his mother/1st defendant and 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant who is stated to be the purchaser of the property from defendant No.1. In the said suit it is contended that the property had been granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1-Sri.Venkateshappa and upon his expiry the defendant No.1/mother sold the property to defendant No.3 on 20.03.1975. Contending that defendant No.1 did not have any absolute right, title or interest in the property, the plaintiff also having a right in the property, his rights have been transferred during his minority and dealt with by defendant No.1 without a guardian being appointed by Court of law, the same is not due to any family necessity, partition was sought for essentially implying that the said sale was not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The trial Court dismissed the said suit firstly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation in as much as the sale has occurred on 20.03.1975, the suit was filed on 25.04.2009. Secondly it is observed that the mother had earlier filed a suit in OS.No.57/2009 seeking for setting aside the sale deed which came to be withdrawn by her and thereafter the suit in OS.No.74/2009 had been filed by the plaintiff and the trial Court held that the proceedings were collusive misconceived and abuse in the process of law. The plaintiff having taken of the same in an appeal in R.A.No.179/2012, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court again holding that the suit is barred by limitation the plaintiff having attained majority in the year 1983-84, the suit not having been filed within three years, thereafter that is by the year 1987, the suit having been filed in the year 2009 has barred by limitation.

4. The First Appellate Court also took into the account observed that defendant No.3 was in possession of the property from the time of sale and the said possession having been for a period more than 12 years, no suit having been filed within the said period, the suit was barred by law. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court.

5. Sri. Vishwanath R.Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the right of the minor has been deprived of by the mother in the year 1975. This right in the property could not have been so deprived. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The property being granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff, on his expiry the plaintiff becomes a Co-owner of the property. If the property is considered to be the self- acquired property of the father, even otherwise if the property were to be considered to be a grant in favour of joint family, even then the plaintiff would have a Coparcenary right in the property.

6. Looked at from any angle, both these rights have been violated by the sale by defendant No.1. He further submits that this aspect came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in the year 2008-2009, when mutation entries were made in the name of defenda