IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.2367/2011 C/W R.S.A.Nos.2287/2011, 2288/2011, 2368/2011 R.S.A.No.2367/2011: BETWEEN:
CHALUVASHETTY S/O KARIYA DEAD BY LRS.
1.SANNASWAMY S/O.LATE CHALUVASHETTY AGED 60 YEARS 2.SAVITHRI W/O.NANJUNDASHETTY AGED 57 YEARS 3.LAKSHMASHETTY @ LAKSHMA S/O.LATE CHALUVASHETTY AGED 55 YEARS 4.MAHESH S/O.LATE CHALUVASHETTY AGED 50 YEARS APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O.CHIKKACHALUVARA VILLAGE KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI, SOMAVARPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT -571 232.
5.SHARADA W/O.RAJASHETTY AGED 47 YEARS R/O.VADAVANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK-573 102 6.SHIVAMMA W/O.HONNASHETTY AGE: 45 YEARS R/O.DODDAMAGGE VILAGE AND HOBLI ARAKALGUD TALUK-573102 7.JAYAMMA @ JAYA W/O.HANUMANTHASHETTY AGE: 43 YEARS R/O.RAJHA BILAGULI VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI PERIYAPATTANA TALUK – 570 107. ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI M RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SRI NAGAPPA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 2.ESHWARA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 3.SHEKHARA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 4.DEMAPPA @ RAJA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 5.SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 6.T D DODDAIAH S/O DEVEGOWDA, MAJOR DEAD BY LRS 6(a) NARENDRANATH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 6(b) VIDYASAGAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 50 YEARS 6(c) THILAKKUMAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT THORANOORU VILLAGE KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU/MADIKERI DISTRICT -571 232. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R- 5, R-6(a) to (c) -SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:23.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.406/2008 (121/2006) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ARKALGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:13.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.231/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, ARKALGUD.
R.S.A.NO.2287/2011:
BETWEEN:
1.SWAMYSHETTY S/O MARIYA AGE 49 YEARS, 2.JAYARAMA S/O MARIYA AGE 47 YEARS, 3.PUTTASHETTY S/O MARIYA AGE 44 YEARS, ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKA ALUVARA VILLAGE, KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK COORG DISTRICT-571 232. ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI M RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SRI NAGAPPA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 2.ESHWARA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 3.SHEKHARA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 4.DEMAPPA @ RAJA S/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR 5.SMT GIRIJAMMA W/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR.
6. SRI T D DODDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR’s 6(a) NARENDRANATH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 6(b) VIDYASAGAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 50 YEARS 6(c) THILAKKUMAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT THORANOORU VILLAGE KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT -571 232. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5, R-6(1) –(3) ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:23.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.407/2008 (122/2006) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ARKALGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:13.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.225/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC ARKALGUD.
R.S.A.No.2288/2011: BETWEEN:
1.T K BASAVARAJ S/O.KALA @ KALASHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2.T K JAYAPPA S/O.KALA @ KALASHETTY AGED:43 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O.CHIKKA ALUVARA VILLAGE, KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK COORG DISTRICT. ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI M RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.SRI NAGAPPA S/O.DEMAPPA, MAJOR 2.ESHWARA S/O.DEMAPPA, MAJOR 3.SHEKHARA S/O.DEMAPPA, MAJOR 4.DEMAPPA @ RAJA S/O.DEMAPPA, MAJOR 5.SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O DEMAPPA, MAJOR R/O.THORENOORU VILLAGE KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI SOMAVARPET TALUK MADIKERI DISTRICT-577517 6.T D DODDAIAH DEAD BY LRS 6(a) NARENDRANATH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 6(b) VIDYASAGAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 50 YEARS 6(c) THILAKKUMAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/O.THORENOORU VILLAGE KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI SOMAVARPET TALUK MADIKERI DISTRICT-577517 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R- 5, R-6(a) ,(b) & (c) ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:23.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.408/08 (123/2006) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., ARKALGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, CONFIRMING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 13.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.224/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), JMFC, ARKALGUD.
R.S.A.No.2368/2011: BETWEEN:
T K CHALUVASHETTY DEAD BY LRS 1. A.C.RAJA S/O CHELUVASHETTY AGED 40 YEARS 2. SURESH A.C.
S/O CHELUVASHETTY AGED 36 YEARS 3. PRASANNA A.C. S/O CHELUVASHETTY 4. PREMA D/O CHELUVASHETTY AGED 45 YEARS 5. NEELA D/O CHELUVASHETTY AGED 43 YEARS R/O CHIKKA ALUVARA VILLAGE, THOREMARU POST, KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 236. ..APPELLANTS (BY SRI M RAGHAVENDRA ACHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.NAGAPPA S/O DEMAPPA MAJOR 2.ESHWARA S/O DEMAPPA MAJOR 3.SHEKARA S/O DEMAPPA MAJOR 4.DEMAPPA @ RAJA S/O DEMAPPA MAJOR 5.SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE DEMAPPA MAJOR 6.T D DODDAIAH DEAD BY LRS 6(a) NARENDRANATH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 6(b) VIDYASAGAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 50 YEARS 6(c) THILAKKUMAR S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED 38 YEARS R/O THORENOORU VILLAGE, KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK MADIKERI DISTRICT -571236 ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D SRINIVAS MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5, R-6(a) to (c) - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:23.02.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.409/2008 (124/2006) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., ARKALGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:13.11.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.223/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, ARKALGUD.
THESE RSAs COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, the matters are taken up for final disposal.
These are the four appeals directed against the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. and R.A. as under:
SL O.S.NO. R.A.NO. RSA NO. NO 1. 231/2004 DISMISSED ON 13.11.2006 2. 225/2004 DISMISSED ON 13.11.2006 3. 224/2004 DISMISSED ON 13.11.2006 4. 223/2004 DISMISSED ON 13.11.2006 406/2008 DISMISSED ON 23.02.2011 407/2008 DISMISSED ON 23.02.2011 408/2008 DISMISSED ON 23.02.2011 409/2008 DISMISSED ON 23.02.2011 2367/2011 BY CHELUVASHETTY/ PLAINTIFF 2287/2011 SWAMYSHETTY AND OTHERS/ PLAINTIFFS 2288/2011 BASAVARAJU AND ANOTHER/ PLAINTIFFS 2368/2011 CHELUVASHETTY AND OTHERS/ PLAINTIFFS 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties hereinafter shall be referred in accordance with the rankings or status held by them before the trial court.
3. Plaintiffs in all the four matters are Chaluvashetty (O.S.No.231/2004). SwamyShetty and others (O.S.No.225/2004), T.K.Basavaraju and others (O.S.No.224/2004) and T.K.Chaluvashetty (O.S.No.223 2004) and defendants are (i) Nagappa, (ii) Eshwara (iii) Demappa @ Raja (iv) Shekara (v)Smt.Girijamma (vi)T.D.Doddaiah, and Doddegowda (O.S.No.225/2004). The plaintiffs are the appellants.
4. The plaintiffs in each of the cases sought relief of declaration of title and injunction before the court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), at Arkalgud, Hassan District.
5. It is claimed that the total schedule property to an extent of 36 acres and 23 guntas was purchased for cash consideration by Kariya and two others under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938 (Exhibit P.7). The total extent of land is 36 acres 23 guntas situated at Aregallu Village, Arkalgud Taluk comprising of Sy.Nos.33, 34 and 38 and thereafter it is stated that the purchasers under the said sale deed are dead and are represented by their respective legal representatives. The purchasers under the said sale deed are Kariya, Kala and Mariya.
6. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.234/2004 –claimed under Kariya one of the joint purchasers. Plaintiff in O.S.No.223/2004 claimed under Kala @ Kalashetty plaintiff in O.S.No.225/2004 claimed under Mariya and plaintiff in O.S.No.231/2004 claimed under Kariya.
7. Thus, it is the claim of the plaintiff or plaintiffs in each of the respective cases that after inheriting the property from the purchasers under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938, they have divided the property and are in possession and enjoyment to the extent stated in the respective plaints. It is necessary to mention insofar as O.S.No.223/2004 and O.S.No.231/2004 are concerned plaintiffs in both the cases claim under Kariya. Regard being had to the fact that in other two cases O.S.No.224/2004 and O.S.No.225/2004 plaintiffs claimed under respective purchasers. They filed suits against the defendants for declaration of title and injunction.
8. The defendants are common in all the four cases. They are Nagappa, S/o Demappa, Eshwara, S/o Demappa, Shekhara, S/o Demappa and Smt.Girijamma, W/o Demappa, T.D.Doddaiah, S/o Devegowda and Doddegowda, brother of purchaser Demappa.
9. The said suits came to be dismissed and the appeals also ended in dismissal as mentioned above.
10. Thus, the claim of plaintiffs in each of the cases is rooted from their right under the registered sale deed dated 03.07.1938.
11. Defendants filed their written statement denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the entire land in Sy.Nos.33, 34 and 38 of Aregallu Village, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. Further denied the claim of the plaintiff having inherited from the purchasers under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938. It is also the case of the defendants that they all claim under one Demappa, who is the father of defendants 1 to 5 and 6th defendant being brother of Demappa.
12. The substantial questions of law framed are as under:
(i) Whether the title can divested through proceedings by the revenue authorities.
(ii) Whether the revenue entries in the absence of title deeds create title and possession?
(iii) Whether the revenue documents could be relied with the revenue documents being used without acknowledgement of the previous proceedings?
13. The defendants asserted their title and possession over the suit schedule properties in all the four cases which among themselves form the part of the total property of 36 acres and 33 guntas under sale deed dated 29.03.1943.
14. It is further contended by the defendants 1 to 4, Nagappa, Eshwara, Shekara and Demappa @ Raja are the sons of Demappa and Girijamma. However, defendant –Doddegowda is said to be brother of Demappa. As the matter stood, it is the contention of defendants in all the cases that in the year 1943 the total property in Sy.Nos.33, 34 and 38 was brought to auction by the Government as the allottee of the land and defendants father is the purchaser of the said property under the sale deed dated 29.03.1943. It is further claim and contention of the defendants that total property of 36 acres and 33 guntas purchased by Kariya and others under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938 came for public auction as the owners of the said land failed to settle the arrears of land revenue.
15. Thus, according to defendants, the father of defendants 1 to 4- Demappa purchased the total property of 36 acres and 33 guntas for a bit consideration of Rs.6/-. It is under the said Demappa the defendants claimed title. The defendants contend that whatever the property that was purchased by Kariya and others under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938 was divested of them in the year 1943 by virtue of auction purchase by the father of the defendants. In these conditions the litigation earlier were fought between plaintiffs and defendants before the revenue courts, however within the sphere of the title deeds.
16. First one is petition before SDO by Kariya and others being the purchasers under sale deed dated 03.07.1938. Their claim before the SDO was numbered as Misc.No.9/56-57 for the said Sy.Nos.33. 34 and 38 and it came to be allowed on 27.11.1957.
17. As against this order the purchaser-Demappa under auction in the year 1943 preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in R.A.No.52/57-58 that came to be allowed and revenue entries were ordered to be restored in favour of Demappa and said order is dated 29.05.1958. Said order was not challenged.
18. Under the said circumstances original suit Nos.1 to 4 stated above came to be filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Needless to repeat that the plaintiffs are all claiming under the purchasers under sale deed dated 03.07.1938 and the defendants claimed under purchaser in the auction purchase conducted by the Government in the year 01.03.1943.
19. Under these circumstances, the matters are all connected together because plaintiffs in all the cases asserted their title and possession having derived under the purchasers under sale deed dated 03.07.1938 and the respective defendants in the said proceedings claim their title for the same property by virtue of the legal representatives of purchaser in the auction purchase that was held on 01.03.1943.
20. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that defendants have no right, title and interest much less possession in respect of the schedule properties in all the four cases. When they asserted their title under sale deed dated 29.03.1943 it was incumbent upon their part to produce the document of title and revenue records which did not happen.
21. The story of the defendants stopped at denying the title and possession of the plaintiffs and did not proceed further. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the property, their title is not disputed ever since the purchase of the same by the elders of the plaintiffs. Thus, purchasers under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938 claimed the title by virtue of purchase of property.
22. Learned counsel for appellants would further submit that trial court and the first appellate court as well failed to notice factual possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule properties, revenue entries and title from the year 1938.
23. Learned counsel for respondents-defendants Sri.Srinivas Murthy would submit that the plaintiffs have not come before the court with clean hands they have suppressed the extinction of title of the plaintiffs by virtue of auction sale held on 01.03.1943. Defendants do not claim the title through any other parallel sources. On the other hand the genesis, commencement of title and possession over the properties is the sale deed dated 03.07.1938. He further submits the title that was acquired by the three purchasers namely Kariya, Kala and Mariya got forfeited by virtue of the auction by which the father of the defendants 1 to 4 -Demappa became the owner.
24. It is not that there is rival claim in respect of the suit schedule property. As stated, schedule property which spreads to all the four cases totally measures 36 acres 33 guntas and there is no dispute in the claim that both the parties are claiming the same land.
25. On dissection, the grounds urged are different.
The property was purchased from Seetharamashetty under the registered sale deed dated 03.07.1938. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence consisting of the sale deed Ex.P7, it is revealed that the defendants are claiming the right, title, interest and possession over the same property falling in survey numbers 33, 34 and 38 of Aregallu village, Arkalgudu Taluk. The difference is, the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 claim as having inherited from their father and defendant No.4 from her husband.
26. Ex.D7 is the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA No.52/57-68, wherein conducting of auction sale on 01.03.1943 is referred. The said proceedings pertain to land in Survey Nos.33, 34 and 38 for cash consideration of Rs.6/-. It is the contention of the plaintiff in O.S.No.231/2004 that no such auction as per Ex.D7 was conducted and no passing of the ownership. It is necessary to mention that, though sale deed is said to have been executed in favour of Kariya and others as per the claim of the plaintiffs under the registered sale deed dated 03.07.1938, but the same is not disputed in content by the defendants. Regard being had to the fact that they claim that the land and property in the said survey numbers to the said extent was purchased in auction dated 01.03.1943 as reflected in Ex.D7 in O.S.No.231/2004. Ex.D7 also reflects that after the purchase of land, the said purchaser did not cultivate the land for over 14 years and hence, the land was brought to auction for recovery of arrears of land revenue. It is under these circumstances, Kariya and others who purchased the total property were divested of their title in favour of Demappa under whom the defendants are claiming.
27. Learned counsel for appellants though contends that there was no auction, it is necessary to mention that transfer of revenue entries in respect of schedule properties are effected by virtue of auction purchase. Among the revenue documents, in Mutation Register Extract, the name of the purchaser Demappa is mentioned on 28.03.1943 as per MR No.37/42-43. Insofar as RTC extract for the year 1964-65 is concerned, Column No.9 contains the name of Demappa, S/o. Demappa to the extent of 21.5 acres of land in survey number 34. Column No.12 also contains the name of Demappa under own cultivation. So also, Ex.D3, RTC extract in respect of survey number 33 contains the name of Demappa to the extent of 6 acres 07 guntas and in survey Number 38 to the extent of 12 acres 16 guntas in the name of Demappa.
28. In Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 which are Records of Rights pertaining to Aregallu village, no doubt, the name of Seetharamashetty is shown, however, later it is bracketed and names of Kariya, S/o. Sannaiah, Kariya, S/o. Cheluvashetty, Basappa, S/o. Putta, Maria, S/o. Chaluvaiah and Kala s/o Mariya are mentioned. As a matter of fact, the entry is not disputed by defendants. It is their case that these purchasers failed to pay the land revenue, hence the property was auctioned in the public auction dated 01.03.1943 evidenced by the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, as per Ex.D7.
29. To counter this, the plaintiffs have not produced any documents. The total documents filed by them are RTC extract at Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in respect of suit schedule property. But they are in the names of Sannamma, com Devappa, Girijamma, com Devappa and T.D.Doddaiah Bin Devegowda. Thus these two documents favour the case of the defendants.
30. Insofar as Ex.P7 is concerned, it is the Mutation Register Extract, wherein the names mutated from Seetharamashetty in favour of Kariya and others. The said document is also not disputed. As stated above, Kariya and others nodoubt acquired title over the schedule property on 03.07.1938 but were divested of the same by virtue of public auction. Though the auction proceeding is disputed, the denial or disputing is not supported by any documentary evidence.
31. Learned trial Judge has observed in his judgment that though it is claimed that on 03.07.1938 suit schedule properties were sold in favour of the plaintiffs, there are no documents to show that they cultivated the land. The learned trial Judge has also observed regarding the passing of title to Demappa (who is said to be the person under whom the defendants are claiming), conducting of auction and handing over the schedule property to Demappa. The learned trial Judge refers the auction proceedings and handing over of the land at page No.11 of the judgment and the same is also reiterated at page No.12.
32. The learned First Appellate Judge has also observed regarding auction proceedings, wherein it is stated that Dyavappa had purchased the above three lands for a sum of Rs.6/- in auction and the Tahasildar also issued sale deed and saguvali chit in favour of said Dyavappa. Thus, it is not the question of rival claims to the same land. On the other hand, plaintiffs claim title by virtue of their ancestors purchasing along with other lands and property to the extent of 36.23 guntas at Aregallu village, Arkalgud taluk, Hassan District, under the sale deed dated 03.07.1938 which is marked as Ex.P7. But the defendants contend that plaintiffs having acquired the title under the said sale deed, Ex.P7, they were divested of their title and possession under Ex.D7.
33. It is not that the title can be divested by revenue entry, just because the title deed is not produced by the defendants, they can be unsuited by the plaintiffs. When the revenue entries have a particular point where the title commences as it happened through the sale deed dated 03.07.1938. The revenue documents without relied upon in the proceedings cannot have legal effect. The revenue entries by themselves have no exclusive source of title. The source is either by act of parties or operation of law.
34. However, it is stated that the appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs on the basis of claim and contention that the defendants have not produced the title deeds and mere entries in revenue records does not contemplate the ownership of the property.
35. In the circumstances, it is not the question whether the revenue entries have overriding effect to title deeds. On the other hand, careful observation over the transaction throws light on the fact that there are no rival entries between the title deeds and the revenue records. In fact, as a matter of fact, on the basis of the title deed Ex.P7 which is the sale deed dated 03.07.1938, the revenue entries came to be changed in favour of Kariya and others from Seetharamashetty. However, there has been no acts of possession, no payment of revenue in respect of the said land that prompted the Deputy Commissioner to bring the property for sale and that was precisely conducted on 01.03.1943, wherein the property to the extent of 36 acres 23 guntas in suit survey numbers were sold for a consideration of Rs.6/-. By virtue of which, whether Kariya and others or the persons claiming under him were divested of that title what was acquired and Demappa became source of succession of property for the defendants. As the plaintiffs and defendants have fought several proceedings and at the end what remains is auction proceedings dated 01.03.1943 which holds sway over other documents and the documents under which possession is handed over.
36. In order to vest the valid title, it is not possible in all the cases to have title deeds. On the other hand, the co-ordination between title deeds and revenue entries make out valid possession and title. However, the revenue entries are not having overriding effect over the sale deeds. But the erroneous claim of ownership as against the title satisfactorily declared by virtue of revenue entries holds good. In the circumstances, non filing of sale deed by the defendants is not fatal to the case. Thus, the substantial questions of law raised are accordingly answered.
37. In the over all circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge in all the four original suits and First Appellate Judge in all the four regular appeals have come to a right conclusion to hold that the claim of the plaintiffs have no merit to be considered to grant the reliefs as prayed for and that as on the date of filing of the suits, there was no title. Thus, I find that the Judgments and decree passed in R.A. Nos.406/2008, 407/2008, 408/2008 and 409/2008 and O.S.Nos.231/2004, 225/2004, 224/2004 and 223/3004 do not call for any interference and the same holds good.
38. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN/tsn*