Heard

the

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

5

2.

The appellants, in this case, are questioning the

concurrent finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.240 of 1992

on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Madhugiri

and the finding of the Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri, in

R.A.No.40 of 1999.

3.

The brief facts.

One Malurappa was the owner of the suit schedule

property. He along with his two sons entered into an

agreement on 12.12.1975, to sell the suit schedule

property, to the first defendant. The suit in O.S.No.71 of

1976 for specific performance filed by the agreement

holder to enforce the agreement dated 12.12.1975 is

dismissed. The appeal against the said judgment and

decree in appeal in R.A.No.22 of 1980 was allowed and the

relief of specific performance was grated. The vendor was

directed to execute the sale deed in terms of the

agreement dated 12.12.1975. The decree was put into

execution in Ex. No.39 of 1983. The sale deed was

executed through the process of the executing Court and

the sale deed was registered on 10.10.1984. Thus, the

6

decree passed in R.A.No.22 of 1980 not only attained

finality, but the decree was executed. The order passed in

the Execution Petition is also not called in question.

4.

As there was interference by the children of the

vendor Malurappa, the purchaser filed a suit for declaration

of title and injunction in O.S.No.368 of 1984. The said suit

was decreed on 16.09.1991 declaring that the purchaser

has acquired right over the property based on the

registered sale deed, which was executed in terms of the

order passed in Ex. Case No.39 of 1983 an injunction is

also granted in favour of the purchaser of the property.

The said judgment and decree in O.S.No.368 of 1984 were

called in question by filing O.S.No.240 of 1992 by the sons

of Malurappa. The said suit was dismissed on the ground

of resjudicata. The appeal is filed in R.A.No.40 of 1999.

The First Appellate Court has also upheld the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.240 of 1992.

5.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

aforementioned

judgments and decrees, the unsuccessful plaintiffs are in

appeal in this second appeal.

7

6.

The learned counsel for the appellants would

submit that possession of the property was not delivered in

the execution proceedings as such, the decree for an

injunction could not have been granted by the Trial Court.

He would also submit that the property in question was the

ancestral property of the appellant, as such, Malurappa

had no right to execute the agreement for sale in favour of

Respondent No.1 herein. He would further submit that the

finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court

regarding resjudicata is erroneous as the issues in suit filed

by them and the issues in the earlier suit proceedings are

different. He further submits that the revenue records still

stand in the name of the present appellants to show that

they are in possession.

7.

The learned counsel for the respondents would

raise the following contentions:

No documents are produced to show that Malurappa

was the joint holder along with his sons. The finding that

Malurappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property and the present respondent has acquired valid

8

title over the suit schedule properties has attained finality

in terms of the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.22

of 1980. The recital in the sale deed executed through the

process of the Court would reveal that the possession of

the properties transferred in favour of the purchaser, as

such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants

and would request for dismissal of the appeal.

8.

This Court has considered the rival contentions

raised at the Bar. There is no dispute over the fact that the

judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.22 of 1980 has

attained finality. The present appellants are the successors

of the judgment debtor in R.A.No.22 of 19