JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is by the legal representatives of original defendant in OS.No.21/2000 (old No.83/1991) on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Maddur. 2. Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under: OS.No.21/2000 (old No.83/1991) was by one Karigundegowda s/o Thantre Gowdana Karigowda seeking the relief of declaration of his title and possessory right over the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in to the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is land bearing Sy.No.199 of Menasagere village, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk measuring 2 acres 16 guntas (wrongly referred to as 97 Ares). The case of the plaintiff is that the said land was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 5.8.1970 from one Kamalamma and her son M.N. Ramachandra Murthy. 3. It is also stated that said Kamalamma and M.N.Ramachandra Murthy were owners of an extent of 25 acres 18 guntas land pursuant to grant made in their favour by the Land Grant Committee, Maddur in land bearing Sy.No.135 with sub numbers 14/a, 19, 35 and 43/b. It is stated that the land covered under the registered sale deed dated 5.8.1970 is an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas in block No.35 of land bearing Sy.No.135. According to plaintiff, said land in Sy.No.135 is resurveyed and new Sy.No.199 is given to that. It is the further case of plaintiff that original defendant – Siddegowda @ Doddahydegowda tried to interfere with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule property on the premise that said land belongs to him and further the said defendant encroached upon his property to an extent of 10 guntas claiming that it is the land belonging to him under Sy.No.135, block No.35. 4. In the said suit, after service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying encroachment in to the suit schedule property. Per contra, he contended that he had purchased independently an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas from the vendor of plaintiff, namely Kamalamma and M.N.Ramachandra Murthy under sale deed dated 20.9.1970, which is at Ex.D26. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the court below proceeded to frame issues and thereafter recorded evidence. Wherein the plaintiff adduced evidence as PW.1. Per contra, he contended that he had purchased independently an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas from the vendor of plaintiff, namely Kamalamma and M.N.Ramachandra Murthy under sale deed dated 20.9.1970, which is at Ex.D26. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the court below proceeded to frame issues and thereafter recorded evidence. Wherein the plaintiff adduced evidence as PW.1. He also examined 5 other witnesses as PWs.2 to 6 and relied upon and marked as many as 43 documents in support of his case as Exs.P1 to P43. 6. So far as the defendant is concerned, since defendant - Siddegowda @ Doddahydegowda had died by then, on his behalf his legal representatives examined 3 witnesses, namely DW.1 – M Shivalingegowda, DW-2, M.Rajegowda and DW.3 Chikkahydaiah. In support of their case, they relied upon and marked in all 27 documents (though judgment refers to only 25 documents, there are 2 sale deeds which are not referred to in the list of documents appended to the judgment, which are Exs.D26 and D27 viz., sale deeds dated 20.9.1970 and 14.9.1970). 7. Among the documents produced by the defendants, what is seen is the suit schedule property, which was sold by Kamalamma and her son was under a grant certificate issued in their favour in a proceeding in INA.CR.17/1968- 69, dated 25.8.1969. However, the said proceeding is subsequently held to be a fraudulent proceeding, where they have secured grant in their favour fraudulently and accordingly, was set aside in a proceeding in DVS.INA.1767,1765/1980-1981 dated 12.8.1993 (Ex.D22). Wherein it is held that the grant in favour of Kamalamma and her son being fraudulent one the deeds of conveyance executed by them in favour of Karigundegowda – plaintiff and Siddegowda @ Doddahydegowda – original defendant of Menasagere village, are not valid. It is in the background, the sale deeds under which the plaintiff and defendant, who are claiming title to various lands in Sy.No.135, which is subsequently said to have been resurveyed and given number as Sy.No.199, are held to be invalid and therefore, no title has passed on to them. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 8. Against the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.21/2000 (old No.83/1991) the plaintiff had filed an appeal in RA.No.26/2001 on the file of District and Sessions Judge at Mandya, wherein the lower appellate court on re- appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record has proceeded to set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.21/2000 (old No.83/1991) dated 24.9.2001 by its judgment dated 22.10.2005 and consequently, partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff in declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, however, rejected the prayer for permanent injunction. Against which, the present appeal is filed by the legal representatives of original defendant – Siddegowda @ Doddhydegowda. 9. In this appeal filed by the legal representatives of original defendant, the plaintiff has filed cross objection in challenging the judgment of lower appellate court, which is only with reference to granting declaration and not considering his prayer for permanent injunction. 10. This appeal when it came up before the Court for admission, was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the lower appellate court was justified in granting a declaration of title when it recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property? 11. In the meanwhile, the cross objection which is filed by the plaintiff is also put up along with this appeal. Hence, both the appeal and cross objection are taken up together for final disposal. Heard Smt.P.C.Sunitha, Sri.Kaleemulla Sharieff and M.R.C Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the parties in the appeal as well as cross objection. Perused the lower court records, grounds of appeal and the cross objection with reference to the judgments impugned. On going through the same, it is seen that the finding of lower appellate court though is erroneous does not call for filing of an appeal by the legal representatives of original defendant in the court below in strict sense, for the simple reason that the plaintiff is claiming title to land bearing Sy.No.135, block No.35 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas, which he has purchased under the sale deed dated 5.8.1970. 12. Admittedly, the title of plaintiff flows from one Smt.Kamalamma and her son, who are said to be grantees of an extent of 25 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.135, block No.14a, 19, 25 and 43b of Menasagere village. 12. Admittedly, the title of plaintiff flows from one Smt.Kamalamma and her son, who are said to be grantees of an extent of 25 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.135, block No.14a, 19, 25 and 43b of Menasagere village. In that, what is conveyed in favour of plaintiff is 2 acres 16 guntas in block No.35 of 135, which he claims to be the land subsequently resurveyed and given Sy.No.199. However, when all the records are seen, the sale in favour of plaintiff itself is set aside by the order of land tribunal vide Ex.D22 dated 12.8.1993, which is not challenged by the vendors of plaintiff to seek that the grant in their favour is a regular grant. In fact, the order which has cancelled the grant in favour of plaintiff’s vendors is clear and settled, in that the vendors of plaintiff, who had no manner of right, title and interest in an extent of 25 acres 18 guntas as stated in the grant certificate issued in their favour, have fabricated and created documents to secure grant in their favour, which is rightly rejected by the land tribunal in the subsequent proceedings. Hence, the same not being challenged in any proceeding, it has reached finality. In that view of the matter, dismissal of the suit by trial court appears to be just and proper. 13. However, when the said judgment of trial court was under challenge before the lower appellate court, it had the advantage of going through all the revenue records which were produced and marked as exhibits on behalf of plaintiff and original defendant. Though such documents were available to demonstrate that the title of land bearing Sy.No.135, block No.35 to an extent of 2 acres 16 guntas was not available with the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, merely because there is a sale deed in existence the declaration being given is without any basis and it is an erroneous order passed by the lower appellate court paving way for further litigation. Therefore, the finding of lower appellate court being erroneous the same is required to be set aside in this appeal filed by the legal representatives of defendant in the court below in answering the substantial question of law in negative against the plaintiff in the court below. 14. Therefore, the finding of lower appellate court being erroneous the same is required to be set aside in this appeal filed by the legal representatives of defendant in the court below in answering the substantial question of law in negative against the plaintiff in the court below. 14. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in RA.No.26/2001 dated 22.10.2005 on the file of Court of District Judge, Mandya, is set aside. While doing so, this Court would find that the cross objection which is filed seeking enlargement of the relief of granting permanent injunction does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the cross objection is rejected. 15. At this juncture, this court would further observe that in this proceedings the appellants tried to impress upon this court that this appeal is filed to demonstrate before the court that the appellants herein have title to an extent of 1 acre 29 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.135, block No.34(b) by virtue of proceedings in DVS.INA.22/90-91 dated 26.3.1992. According to appellants, the said extent of land was under cultivation of the original defendant Siddegowda @ Doddahydegowda for more than 40 years, which is recognized by the land tribunal in the aforesaid proceedings and grant is made in favour of his mother under Rule 7(4) of My sore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and the Rules framed there under as the cultivator. In fact, the revenue records would indicate that the same is in pursuance to the sale deed which was already executed in their favour by Kamalamma. However, since the same is not part of this proceedings this court would observe that as and when the appellants approach the revenue authorities for registering their names as grantees of aforesaid land, the manner in which they secured the title for said land before approaching the authorities for regularization should be looked into. If their title to the said land is traceable to the grant order in favour of Kamalamma and her son, namely M.N.Ramachandra Murthy in proceedings No.INA.CR.17/68- 69, dated 25.8.1969 then they will not have any right to seek registering of their cultivating rights under the provisions of either Land Reforms Act or under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. If their title to the said land is traceable to the grant order in favour of Kamalamma and her son, namely M.N.Ramachandra Murthy in proceedings No.INA.CR.17/68- 69, dated 25.8.1969 then they will not have any right to seek registering of their cultivating rights under the provisions of either Land Reforms Act or under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed in part and so far as cross objection is concerned, it is dismissed.