L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent judgments of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, narayanpet in O. S. No. 28 of 1992 and the court of Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet in a. S. No. 6 of 2003. ( 2 ) THE appellants filed the suit for the relief of cancellation of a sale deed dated 17-6-1974 executed by their father late Veeranna in favour of the sole respondent. It is their case that the suit schedule property comprising of Acs. 7-39 guntas in Survey No. 240 of Thangedi Village, maganoor Mandal of Mahaboobnagar district, was purchased by their grandmother way back in the year 1355 Fasli in the name of their father and by mat time, their father was a minor. They contend that their father was not the exclusive owner of that property and it was part of the joint family property. ( 3 ) BEFORE the suit came to be filed, certain proceedings ensued between the respondent on the one hand and the father of the appellants- Veeranna on the other. On the strength of the sale deed, dated 17-6-1974, the respondent filed O. S. No. 3 of 1981 for recovery of the possession of suit schedule property. The suit was decreed on 25-4-1985. The father of the appellants-Veeranna filed A. S. No. 56 of 1985, and during the pendency of that appeal, he died. The appellants herein came on record. The appeal was ultimately, dismissed. They filed S. A. No. 96 of 1992 in this Court. The said second appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 10-4-2002. It was observed therein that notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, it shall be open to the appellants to workout their remedies in OS. No. 28 of 1992, which was filed by the that time. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court framed as many as ten issues in the present suit. On behalf of the appellants, PW. 1 was examined and exs. A. 1 to A. 16 were marked. The respondent examined himself as DW. 1 and he filed Exs. B. l and B. 2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit schedule. On behalf of the appellants, PW. 1 was examined and exs. A. 1 to A. 16 were marked. The respondent examined himself as DW. 1 and he filed Exs. B. l and B. 2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit schedule. property was declared as the exclusive property of the father of the appellants- Veeranna in the earlier round of litigation and that it is not open to the appellants to canvass that it is a joint family property. ( 5 ) THE appellants filed AS No. 6 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, narayanpet. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said appeal through his judgment, dated 4-2-2004. ( 6 ) SRI M. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that while dismissing the Second Appeal No. 96 of 1992, this Court categorically observed that it shall be open to the appellants to pursue their remedy in OS No. 28 of 1992 and despite the same, the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have taken the view that the finding as to the nature of the property has become final in the earlier proceedings. He submits that the appellants were not aware of the litigation that was pending between late Veeranna and the respondent till the execution proceedings were initiated for recovery of the possession of the land after the death of veeranna. ( 7 ) THE appellants filed the suit for cancellation of a sale, deed executed by their father Veeranna way back on 17-6-1974. The basis for their claim was that the land was purchased by their grand mother at the time when Veeranna was a minor, and thereby, it cannot be treated as his exclusive property. This question certainly would have assumed importance, had it been a case where the appellants raised such a plea against their father during his lifetime. It was not as if there was no occasion for raising such a question. This was, in fact, the bone of contention in the suit filed by the respondent against late Veeranna. To avoid any liability under the sale deed executed by him on 17-6-1974, Veeranna pleaded that the property belongs to joint family and that he - did not have the right to sell it. This was, in fact, the bone of contention in the suit filed by the respondent against late Veeranna. To avoid any liability under the sale deed executed by him on 17-6-1974, Veeranna pleaded that the property belongs to joint family and that he - did not have the right to sell it. In fact, a specific issue has been framed on this aspect in O. S. No. 3 of 1981. A definite finding was recorded to the effect that the land was not part of the joint family property. This finding became final in the appeal as well as the second appeal that arose out of o. S. No. 3 of 1981. ( 8 ) IT is true that this Court took note of the pendency of the present suit, by the time the second appeal came up for hearing and that the appellants were permitted to prosecute their remedies. The fact, however, remains that the proceedings, initiated by the appellants by filing a separate suit, cannot alter the nature of controversy in relation to the land, which has already become final. Things would have been different altogether, had the appellants not been parties to the earlier round of proceedings. They came on record when as No. 56 of 1985 was pending. They have stepped into the shoes of their father. It was not open to them to have taken any plea contrary to what was pleaded by their father. Such facility is available to a person who was a minor by that time. None of the appellants were minors, by the time they came on record as the legal heirs of their father. Having participated in the earlier proceedings and permitted the findings recorded therein to become final, the appellants cannot ignore them. ( 9 ) THE Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have discussed the issues and points from their proper perspective. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. ( 10 ) THE second appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.