JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 in R.A No. 65/2007 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Devanahalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2007 in O.S. No. 68/2001 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Devanahalli. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. 2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 21.10.1974 is a nominal sale deed and inoperative, and to cancel the same. They have also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the property bearing Sy. No. 64 measuring 3 acres including karab land situated at Haralunagenahalli Village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, morefully described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint was originally a Thoti inam land. On 16.9.1992, the said land was regranted in favour of Chikkalachappa, the grand father of the plaintiffs. Chikkalachappa bequeathed a portion of ‘A’ schedule property to the plaintiffs under a Will dated 2.3.1993 which is morefully described in ‘B’ schedule property. After the death of their grand father on 18.9.1995, they have become the absolute owners of ‘B’ schedule property. The revenue records of the said property stand in their name. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as owners. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instigation and support of defendant No. 3 tried to interfere with their possession in respect of the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess them from the said property. The plaintiffs came to know the illegal acts of the defendants and rushed to the spot and resisted the defendants by timely intervention of the elders and well wishers. Within few days from the date of incident, the plaintiffs received a notice from Tahsildar to appear in a case. Thereafter, they verified the records and came to know the existence of the sale deed dated 21.10.1974 executed by their grand father Chikkalachappa in favour of the defendants. It is contended that the said sale deed was not acted upon. The sale deed was executed by their grand father as a security for certain loan transaction. Their grand father had settled the said transaction during his lifetime. They continued to be in possession of the said property. 3. It is contended that the said sale deed was not acted upon. The sale deed was executed by their grand father as a security for certain loan transaction. Their grand father had settled the said transaction during his lifetime. They continued to be in possession of the said property. 3. The defendants have filed their written statement contending that the ‘B’ schedule property has been purchased by them from Chikkalachappa, the grand father of the plaintiffs, under a deed of sale dated 21.10.1974 for valuable consideration of Rs.500/-. From the date of purchase of the property, the 1st defendant and her family members have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. They are growing crops such as Ragi, Jola and Avare etc. on the said property. Since the said property was thoti inam land, it was regranted in favour of Chikkalachappa under the provisions of Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961, and the regrant enures to their benefit. They have denied other allegations made in the plaint. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 21.10.1974 executed by their grand father was a nominal sale deed ? (3) Whether the 1st defendant proves that Chikkalachappa had sold 1 acre of suit schedule land in his favour under registered sale deed dated 21.10.1974 and out him in possession ? (4) Whether the suit is properly valued and sufficient Court fee has been paid ? (5) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit ? (Deleted as per order dated 2.12.2003 ) (6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed ? (7) What order or decree ? 5. The 1st plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked in his evidence. The 2nd defendant got himself examined as D.W.1. The sale deed dated 21.10.1974 was marked in his evidence as Ex.D.1. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said judgment and decree. 6. The 2nd defendant got himself examined as D.W.1. The sale deed dated 21.10.1974 was marked in his evidence as Ex.D.1. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said judgment and decree. 6. At the time of admission of the appeal on 15.11.2010, this Court has framed the following substantial question of law : “Whether in respect of agricultural land, when the question of possession and cultivation would be reflected more by the documents other than the title deed itself, as title not be an issue to decide as to the possession of agricultural land and having regard to the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 ?” 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs would contend that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit ‘B’ schedule property. The property originally belong to plaintiffs’ grand father Chikkalachappa. Chikkalachappa has bequeathed the said property under Ex.P.1 Will dated 2.3.1993 in favour of the plaintiffs. They have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the said property. They made enquiry and came to know the execution of the sale deed at Ex.D.1 by their grand father in favour of the 1st defendant. It is argued that the said sale deed has been executed by their grand father as a security for certain loan transaction. It is only a nominal sale deed which has not been acted upon by the defendants at any point of time. Thus, the plaintiffs continued to be the owners of the property. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in Budavanat Subraya Palekar vs. Babu Vajra Chandavarkar and others, AIR 2004 KAR 105 . 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree. It is argued that Chikkalachappa, the grand father of the plaintiffs, had executed the sale deed at Ex.D.1 on 24.10.1974. Since then, defendant No. 1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree. It is argued that Chikkalachappa, the grand father of the plaintiffs, had executed the sale deed at Ex.D.1 on 24.10.1974. Since then, defendant No. 1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is argued that after regrant of the property in favour of Chikkalachappa, the same has been enured to the benefit of the defendants. It is further contended that the sale deed at Ex.D.1 is not a nominal sale deed. When Chikkalachappa had sold the property as early as in the year 1974, question of bequeathing the same in favour of the plaintiffs does not arise. It is further argued that Chikkalachappa died on 18.9.1995. For a period of 21 years after execution of sale deed at Ex.D.1 till the date of death of Chikkalachappa, the plaintiffs have not thought of challenging the said sale deed. The plaintiffs have filed the above suit after six years from the date of death of Chikkalachappa without any basis. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. It is further argued that the question of law framed by this Court on 15.11.2010 is not proper. 9. As has been noticed above, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the ‘B’ schedule property on the basis of the Will dated 2.3.1993. They further contend that the defendants are interfering with their possession. They were not aware of the sale deed at Ex.D.1 dated 21.10.1974 executed by their grand father Chikkalachappa in favour of the 1st defendant. They came to know the execution of the said sale deed recently. They have further pleaded that the said sale deed is a nominal sale deed, which has not been acted upon. That is why, they have sought for cancellation of the said sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, Ex.D.1 is not a sale deed in reality and it is not acted upon by the defendants at any point of time. Thus, execution of the sale deed is not disputed. According to them, the sale deed has been executed as a security for certain loan transaction. They have not produced any materials in support of the said contention nor have they examined any independent witnesses in support of their case. 10. Thus, execution of the sale deed is not disputed. According to them, the sale deed has been executed as a security for certain loan transaction. They have not produced any materials in support of the said contention nor have they examined any independent witnesses in support of their case. 10. It is to be noted here that Chikkalachappa had executed the sale deed at Ex.D.1 on 21.10.1974. He died on 18.9.1995, which is not in dispute. Chikkalachappa did not choose to challenge the said sale deed during his lifetime. After six years from the date of death of Chikkalachappa, the plaintiffs have chosen to challenge the sale deed by filing the above suit. The trial Court as also the First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record have rightly dismissed the suit. I am of the view that the sale deed at Ex.D.1 dated 21.10.1974 is not a nominal sale deed as contended by the plaintiffs. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs in Budavanat Subraya Palekar’s case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. It is also clear that the defendants have been in possession of the property in question. The substantial question of law framed above is answered accordingly. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. Draw the decree accordingly. 11. In view of dismissal of the appeal as above, Misc. Civil No. 341/2010 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed.