JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2014 in O.S.No.23/2010 passed by the Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Yelburga, and the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Yalburga in R.A.No.5/2014. 2. The facts of the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.203 measuring 16 acres 9 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.205/2 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas. The said lands were earlier owned and possessed by their propositus namely Hanumappa and after the demise of their ancestors, they succeeded to the said lands. The plaintiff No.1 is the grandson of deceased Hanumappa and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are his uncles. Further it is contended by the plaintiffs that father of the defendants namely Shekharappa filed an injunction suit before the Munsiff Court, Yalburga in O.S.No.269/1/66 pertaining to land Sy.No.203 only to the extent of 2 acres out of 16 acres 9 guntas. The said suit filed by the father of the defendants was decreed and accordingly the name of the father of the defendants was mutated by M.E.No.39/1966-67 pertaining to 2 acres 2 guntas. The father of the defendants had also filed injunction suit against the grandfather of plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 in respect of Sy.No.203 only for 2 acres 10 guntas out of 16 acres 9 guntas in O.S.No.366/1/62. He had also filed another suit in O.S.No.363/1 for 2 acres 10 guntas in the said survey number against Yamanappa Madar and another suit in O.S.No.364/1/1962 for the said survey number of 2 acres 2 guntas against the grandfather of plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4. Both the suits have been decreed in favour of father of defendants and all the three suits were on the basis of oral agreement for the relief of injunction. After the death of father of defendants, defendants have succeeded to the suit properties and gave an application for effecting mutation in their names. The revenue authorities after due enquiry, mutated the names of defendants on the basis of succession. Thereafter, both the defendants have partitioned their family properties including Sy.No.205/2 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas. After the death of father of defendants, defendants have succeeded to the suit properties and gave an application for effecting mutation in their names. The revenue authorities after due enquiry, mutated the names of defendants on the basis of succession. Thereafter, both the defendants have partitioned their family properties including Sy.No.205/2 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas. Without having any right the revenue authorities mutated the name of defendant No.1 which is void and the mutation order passed by the Tahasildar, Yelburga on 23.01.2008 not in accordance with law. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Tahasildar before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Tahasildar. The Assistant Commissioner directed the parties to approach the civil Court. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The defendants with an intention to encroach upon the suit land are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and therefore, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for declaration and injunction. 3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the entire allegations made in the plaint. It is also denied that the propositus by name Hanumappa was the owner of the suit schedule property and after his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit properties. It is further contended that father of the defendants namely Shekharappa had purchased the suit schedule lands orally measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.203 (new No.205) during the year 1949 from its previous owner namely Hulagappa and others. The said persons obstructing the possession of the suit lands for which the father of the defendants had filed suit in O.S.No.269/1/1996 for declaration and injunction. The suit came to be decreed in favour of father of the defendants. Further it is contended that the defendants in O.S.Nos.363/1/1962, 366/1/1962, 364/1/1962 are not related to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the decrees passed in the aforesaid suits. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit lands. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession over the suit property? 2. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit lands. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession over the suit property? 2. Whether the defendant proves that without seeking the relief of possession the suit is not maintainable? 3. Whether the defendants proves that suit is not maintainable for want of identification of suit lands? 4. Whether defendant proves that the suit is time barred? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed? 6. What order or Decree? 5. The plaintiffs in support of their case, plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW-1 and plaintiff No.2 examined PW-2, plaintiff NO.4 was examined as PW-3 and one witness was examined as PW-4 and 75 documents got marked at Exs.P-1 to P 75. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 and two witnesses were examined as DWs-2 and 3 and got marked the documents as Exs.D-1 to D-54. 6. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the absolute owners in possession over the suit schedule property and further held that the defendants have proved that suit for mere declaration without seeking further consequential relief is not maintainable. Further held that the defendants have proved that suit is not maintainable for want of identification of suit land. Further held that defendants have proved that suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree filed R.A.No.5/2014. 7. The first appellate Court framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the findings given by the trial court that suit of the plaintiff is barred by time is just and proper? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for interference by this court? 3. What decree or order? 8. The first appellate Court held that the findings given by the trial Court that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time is just and proper and also held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court does not call for any interference. Consequently, dismissed the appeal. 3. What decree or order? 8. The first appellate Court held that the findings given by the trial Court that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time is just and proper and also held that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court does not call for any interference. Consequently, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below have filed this second appeal. 9. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. 10. The case of plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule properties. The said properties were originally owned by one Hanumappa who is the original propositus and plaintiff No.1 is the grandson and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the sons of the said Hanumappa. After the death of Hanumappa, plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit lands and they are in possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of ownership, but in fact plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that suit property was owned and possessed by original propositur namely Hanumappa and further revenue records produced go to show that the property is in the name of defendants No.1 and 2. Further plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs have not produced any title deeds to show that the plaintiffs are the owners of suit properties. As per the provisions of Section 34 of Specific Performance Act, 1963 suit for mere declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the owners of suit properties and further failed to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties. 11. The defendants have taken specific contention that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he has clearly admitted that about 13 years back itself, the plaintiffs have got the knowledge about the entries in the defendants’ name in the RTC relating to the suit properties. PW-1 has not attempted to challenge the entries standing in the name of defendants. The admission of plaintiffs clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs had knowledge about entries made in the name of defendants about 13 years back. PW-1 has not attempted to challenge the entries standing in the name of defendants. The admission of plaintiffs clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs had knowledge about entries made in the name of defendants about 13 years back. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of knowledge but in fact the plaintiffs have filed the suit after 13 years from the date of knowledge and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as per the Article 58 of Limitation Act. The appellate Court after re-appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership as well as the possession and thereby affirmed the findings of the trial Court that suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. 12. As discussed above, though the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of ownership, they have not produced any records to show that how the original propositus Hanumappa has acquired the suit property. Further no records have been produced to show that the suit land was standing in the name of Hanumappa. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that after the death of Hanumappa, they have succeeded to the suit properties. The Courts below have not committed any error in passing the impugned judgments. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.