This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the

judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Civil

Judge, Basavan Bagewadi in O.S.No.270/19941, which

was confirmed by the judgment and decree dated

24.01.2009 passed in R.A.No.09/2006 by the Senior Civil

Judge, Basavan Bagewadi.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred with the original ranks occupied by them

before the Trial court.

3

The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of

title over the suit schedule property and the defendant has

put forward counter claim and the suit of the plaintiffs

came to be dismissed, while the counter claim came to be

allowed. The said judgment and decree came to be

challenged in R.A.No.09/2006 by plaintiff No.1(a) and

plaintiff No.2 and the appeal was also dismissed. Now, this

second appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1(a), who was

appellant No.1 before the First Appellate Court.

4.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

5.

The learned counsel for the appellant would

contend that serious substantial question of law is involved

in the appeal, as the Trial Court has allowed the counter

claim of the defendant, wherein she has contended that

the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit

filed by the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the Trial

4

Court has erred in granting counter claim without framing

preliminary issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction.

6.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is to be noted here that though the defendant

has raised the objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of

the Court, but the same was not accepted by the Trial

Court and subsequently she prosecuted the suit. Apart

from that, the counter claim came to be decreed. Further,

the Trial Court has framed specific issue regarding counter

claim and has answered this issue in favour of the

defendant.

7.

Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree

of the Trial Court, R.A.No.09/2006 came to be filed by

plaintiff No.1(a) and plaintiff No.2. However, it is admitted

by the appellant herein, who was plaintiff No.1(a) before

the Trial Court and appellant No.1 before the First

Appellate Court that, plaintiff No.2, who was appellant

No.2 before the First Appellate Court died during the

5

pendency of the appeal itself and the said fact was not

reported to the Court. Automatically when the matter

regarding death of appellant No.2 was not reported and

when the matter was argued, the First Appellate Court has

dismissed the appeal on merits. Now, plaintiff No.1(a) has

filed this appeal. When the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court is already confirmed by the First Appellate

Court against appellant No.2/plantiff No.2 and the legal

heirs were not brought on record and when respondent

Nos.2 and 3 did not challenge the judgment and decree,

who are sailing with the present appellant, the question of

interfering with the said judgment and decree does not

arise at all. Apart from that, on factual aspects, both the

Courts have appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence and came to a conclusion that the defendant is

the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and

injunction came to be issued against the plaintiffs.

8.

The substantial question of law raised in the

memorandum of appeal cannot be termed as question of

6

law, as though the defendant has raised an issue regarding

pecuniary jurisdiction, the Trial Court did not entertain the

same and the defendant has accepted the same. Apart

from that, the plaintiffs never challenged the pecuniary

jurisdiction and now they cannot take advantage of the

grounds urged by the defendant in order to substantiate

their claim. No substantial question of law is forthcoming

to entertain this appeal against the concurrent findings of

the Courts below. Hence, no grounds are made out for

admitting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands

dismissed.

In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.2/2013 for stay

does