JUDGMENT : J.M.KHAZI, J. In this Regular Second Appeal, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 have challenged judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit in question seeking declaration of ownership over the suit property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.15/3 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. However, subsequently, he got the plaint amended restricting his prayer to Southern half to an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas, by conceding the fact that the northern half of the said survey number was given by his father to the Panchayat for formation of sites. Plaintiff is tracing out his title to the suit property through his father Shantappa. He claimed that since the said survey number was very near to the village and consist of stony land, it is not cultivable. Therefore, plaintiff is grazing his cattle and also storing the agricultural equipments and there is a cattle shed in the said property. He has fenced the same with the stone pillars. He has alleged that recently the defendants in order to illegally occupy the suit schedule property have created documents and tried to interfere. Despite holding a Panchayat, the defendants did not stop their illegal activities. The Sale deed dated 30.09.1977 executed by the father of the plaintiff is behind his back and not binding on him and it is not acted upon. 4. Defendants have filed written statement, disputing that plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit property. He was never in possession and suit for declaration without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable. Plaintiff has given wrong boundaries and no property as described in the suit schedule is in existence. It is declined as a fragment land and it is not fit for cultivation. Plaintiff is in possession of only to an extent measuring 60 x 30 ft, which is standing in the name of one Shankar, the nephew of plaintiff. The defendants have denied that they are trying to illegally occupy valuable property of the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged one is false. 5. Plaintiff is in possession of only to an extent measuring 60 x 30 ft, which is standing in the name of one Shankar, the nephew of plaintiff. The defendants have denied that they are trying to illegally occupy valuable property of the plaintiff. There is no cause of action for the suit and alleged one is false. 5. Inter-alia defendants have contended that since Sy.No.15/3 was declared as fragment land, father of plaintiff - Shantappa applied for conversion order. Since he could not fulfill the condition imposed for the conversion, out of southern half measuring 1 acre 4 guntas, Shantappa formed sites. He sold site No.1 through registered sale deed dated 29.09.1977 (Ex.D1) and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Similarly, defendant No.2 is the owner of site measuring 51 x 30 ft. Defendant No.3 has purchased plot No.4 measuring 130 x 60 ft from the father of plaintiff in the year 1984 and he is having a cowdung pit in the said site. The sketch produced by defendants clearly indicate that plaintiff is not at all in possession of any portion of Sy.No.15/3, except an extent measuring 60 x 30 ft standing in the name of his nephew Shankar. He is not entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. 7. At the trial on behalf of plaintiff, 2 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 and 2. Exs.P1 to 25 are marked. 8. On behalf of defendants, DWs-1 to 4 are examined and Exs.D1 to 30 are marked. 9. The trial court dismissed the suit. 10. Against the same, plaintiff filed Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court. It was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment in decree passed in the Regular Appeal, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 have come up with this Regular Second Appeal, contending that the First Appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in declaring plaintiff as the owner of suit property when he has failed to produce any legal evidence to prove his title and possession. The relief of declaration that sale deed is executed in the year 1977 is not binding on him is clearly barred by limitation, which fact is not appreciated by the First Appellate Court. The relief of declaration that sale deed is executed in the year 1977 is not binding on him is clearly barred by limitation, which fact is not appreciated by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has ignored to take into consideration Exs.D1, 2, 4, 13, 18 to 21. These documents clearly indicate that the father of plaintiff has sold several portions of suit schedule property and as such plaintiff could not be granted relief of declaration. The findings of the First Appellate Court are inconsistent with the evidence on record and as such perverse. 12. Vide order dated 13.08.2019, this appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether still cause of action in full survives after dismissal of regular appeal? (ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder? 13. Heard arguments and perused the record. 14. Thus, plaintiff is claiming declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that suit schedule property originally belong to his father and he has succeeded to the same. He claims to be in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and alleges interference by the defendants. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim to be in possession and enjoyment of portion of suit schedule property, through sales executed by father of the plaintiff and the other portion of suit schedule property is also in possession of several persons and in the light of the same, suit itself is not maintainable. Defendants have specifically relied upon Exs.D1, 2, 4, 13, 18, 20 and 21 to demonstrate that plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of suit property and in the light of the sale deeds executed by his father, suit without recovery of possession is not maintainable. 15. In fact, on 30.01.2025, while addressing arguments, learned Senior Counsel representing the legal representatives of defendant No.1 submitted that additional substantial question of law at Sl.Nos 1 and 3 are required to be framed. Already arguments are heard on those substantial questions of law also. 16. In the light of the pleadings put forth by both parties and the evidence placed by them, the following additional substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Already arguments are heard on those substantial questions of law also. 16. In the light of the pleadings put forth by both parties and the evidence placed by them, the following additional substantial questions of law arise for consideration. (i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit ignoring cumulative effect of Ex.D1, D2, D4, D13, D18, D20, D21, which are the sale deeds and relevant documents showing considerable portion of the suit property as already been sold by the deceased father of the plaintiffs? (ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in ignoring the question regarding limitation as required under Section 3 of the Limitation Act , 1963, since the prayer sought for in the year 2022 is one of declaration that the sale deed executed in the year 1977 is null and void, which is expressly barred by limitation? 17. At the stage of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff filed a memo stating that he would not press the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 30.09.1977 is null and void. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming his right and title the suit property through his father. He has not claimed that suit schedule property is his ancestral and joint family properties and as such the alienation is made by his father is not binding on his share. His case is that suit schedule property originally belong to his father and he has inherited the same. Therefore, whatever alienation his father has made would be certainly binding on the plaintiff. Unless he claim that the Sale deeds are not valid for the grounds available under law, plaintiff cannot claim that they are not binding on him. Unless and until he seeks cancellation of the sale deeds within the period of limitation, plaintiff cannot claim that the sale deeds are not binding on him. 18. As rightly observed by the trial Court initially plaintiff sought relief in respect of entire extent of 2 acres 9 guntas and later restricted it to 1 acre 4 guntas, which is southern half of the said survey number. During his cross- examination, PW-1 has stated that he came to know that out of the suit survey number, his father has given 1 acre to gramathana. During his cross- examination, PW-1 has stated that he came to know that out of the suit survey number, his father has given 1 acre to gramathana. In fact, a suggestion is made to DW-4 Eknath Rao that out of 2 acre 9 guntas, Shantappa had given 1 acre 5 guntas to Panchayat. The witness has volunteered that Shantappa has given the said extent to the Panchayath during Nizam time by taking money to enable the villagers to construct houses. DW-1 during the course of his evidence has deposed that while in the southern half, the father of plaintiff formed sites and sold, he has given away northern half to Panchayat, which has allotted several plots to different villagers and they have constructed their houses. In fact, Ex.P 16, which is the sketch issued by the office of ADLR and relied upon by the plaintiff indicate that the northern half of Sy.No.15/3 consist of constructed houses. 19. Ex.D1 is the registered Sale deed dated 30.09.1977 executed by the father of plaintiff in favour of defendant No1. Through this Sale deed, he has sold Site No.1 measuring 60 x 60 ft. Ex.D30 is one more registered sale dated 30.09.1977 executed by the father of plaintiff in favour of one Amrit Rao. Through this Sale deed, he has sold Site No.7 measuring 400 Sq. yards. Along with these sales, sketch of the sites formed in the Southern half is enclosed, which indicates that in all seven sites were formed in three rows, separated by roads, running East - West. A road is running on the western side of these sites. Despite registered sale deeds, standing in the name of defendant No.1 and others, plaintiff has not sought for cancellation of the said sale deeds. 20. The Panchayat has also assigned numbers to the plots purchased by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, similarly, Exs.D23 and 24 are Khatha standing in the name of Shankar and defendant No.3 Vijay Kumar clearly indicates that plaintiff is no longer in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. In the absence of being in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and also in the light of clog in the title, plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration and injunction. In the absence of being in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and also in the light of clog in the title, plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration and injunction. The evidence placed on record clearly indicates that the northern half of Sy.No.15/3 was given to the Panchayat and in turn villagers have constructed several houses in the said extent. 21. Some portion of the suit property is still vacant and therefore, plaintiff is staking a claim over suit schedule property denying the Sale deeds executed by his father in favour of defendant No.1 and others. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not made all the purchasers party to the suit and therefore suit is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record rightly dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court ignoring the cumulative effect of Exs.D1, 2, 4, 13, 18, 20 and 21 has decreed the suit, which is perverse. More over the Sale deeds at Exs.D1 and 30 are of the year 1977. Such being the case the suit is barred by limitation. 22. The First Appellate Court has not paid any attention to this aspect. It has upset a well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. The findings given by and conclusions arrived at by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the evidence placed on record and as such perverse. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside and accordingly substantial question No.3 is answered in the Affirmative and Additional substantial Question Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative. However, substantial question number one does not survive for consideration. In the result, this appeal succeeds and accordingly the following: ORDER 1. Regular Second Appeal filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2012 in RA.No.172/2010 on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Bidar is set aside. 3. The judgment and decree dated 25.04.2009 in O.S.No.25/2002 on the file of I Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bidar is confirmed. 4. The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith.