JUDGMENT : (H.P. SANDESH, J.) 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in O.S.No.70/2008 that they are entitled to recover the possession of suit schedule property in pursuance of judgment passed in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 since the Court has declared that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that suit itself is not maintainable and also contend that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and also took the defense that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also suit is barred by limitation. 4. The Trial Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the suit as well as the contentions raised by the defendant framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked document Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 and also examined one witness as P.W.2. On the other defendant is examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked document Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.41. The Trial Court having considered the material on record and also considering the judgment passed in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 comes to the conclusion that already decision was taken with regard to property is a joint family properties and plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of the possession of the scheduled property in pursuance of the judgment and decree and all other issues which have been framed in view of the defense taken by the defendants were answered as negative and partly decreed the suit in directing the defendant No.1 to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the family of the B.L.Thimmaiah and Billavara Lingappa without mesne profits, the same is challenged before the Appellate Court in R.A.7/2019. 5. 5. The Appellate Court having taken note of the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and also the oral and documentary evidence available on record, formulated the point whether the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of possession without seeking the relief of declaration is maintainable and also whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the suit schedule property and once again point for consideration for non-joinder of necessary parties was also considered and whether it requires interference of finding of the Trial Court. 6. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record and also considering the grounds, comes to the conclusion that suit is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration and also negatived the ground which have been raised in the appeal also with regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that when the appellants are claiming right based on the document of Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.37 and non-examination of those rendered a gross negligence and also counsel who vehemently contend that the theory of res judicata doesn't arise in the place as there was no issue, adjudication, reasonings and not even whispered about the existence of document Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.37. 8. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.37 was produced, even in the earlier suit in a common judgment also, the same is marked and no reasoning was given with regard to the documents of Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.37. The counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to frame a substantive question of law Whether the Courts below have rightly arrived at a just decision of the case without looking discussing and not arraying any reasons through the registered document of Ex.D.37 produced in O.S.No.66/1993 and Ex.D.19 in O.S.No.70/2008 of the sale deed of the year 1982 since the appellant had purchased the suit schedule property and enjoying the peaceful possession of the property and without considering the said document, question of handing over the possession doesn't arise. The counsel also would vehemently contend that granting of possession by both the Trial Court and affirming the same, only relying upon the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 is erroneous and to that effect also frame a substantive question of law. 9. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that when the document was relied upon before the earlier original suit and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 attained its finality, question of re-agitating the same in the present second appeal doesn't arise and the appellant cannot raise the said issue in the present appeal in not challenging the earlier judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003. The Trial Court having considered the material on record and particularly judgment and decree, answered the issue No.1 as affirmative and comes to the conclusion that property belongs to the joint family property and when such declaration was made in the earlier suit and again cannot raise the said question. 10. The counsel also vehemently contend that both the Courts even considered the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties and also the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.70/2008 is very clear to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the family of B.L.Thimmaiah and Billavara Lingappa and when such judgment was passed, now again he cannot contend that the legal representatives of the Billvara Lingappa were not made as parties and the same has been considered by both the Courts. Hence, question of admitting and framing substantive question of law doesn't arise. 11. Hence, question of admitting and framing substantive question of law doesn't arise. 11. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also in the earlier judgment in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003, the suit was decreed declaring that plaintiffs are not bound by the sale deed bearing No.179/9192 dated 01.07.1991 executed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of 1 st defendant which is registered with the Sub-Registrar Virajpet and also the relief of mandatory injunction and claim for damages was dismissed and counter claim made by the defendant was also dismissed in entirety and suit filed by the O.S.No.14/2003 is decreed in part that relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff in respect of his ownership over the suit ‘B’ schedule property is also dismissed and relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff that the exchange deed bearing No.547/1988 dated 21.03.1988 and sale deed bearing No.58/1989 dated 29.04.1988 registered with the Sub-Registrar, Virajpet is also not binding on the plaintiff is hereby allowed and relief of permanent injunction claimed by the plaintiff in respect of ‘B’ schedule property is also allowed and further ordered that the defendant or his any persons claiming under the defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff. However, this relief of permanent injunction shall not come in the way of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.66/1993 to enforce their rights against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.14/2003 in accordance with law. Having considered this judgment, it is very clear that the liberty is given to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.66/1993 to enforce their rights against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.14/2003 in accordance with law. Hence, it is very clear that suit in O.S.No.66/1993 is decreed declaring that plaintiffs are not bound by the sale deeds which has been claimed by the 1 st defendant and also made it clear that liberty is given to claim the relief and accordingly they filed a separate suit in O.S.No.70/2008. 12. Hence, it is very clear that suit in O.S.No.66/1993 is decreed declaring that plaintiffs are not bound by the sale deeds which has been claimed by the 1 st defendant and also made it clear that liberty is given to claim the relief and accordingly they filed a separate suit in O.S.No.70/2008. 12. The Trial Court while considering the relief sought in O.S.No.70/2008, having considered the judgment passed in O.S.No.66/1993, which is marked as Ex.P.17, comes to the conclusion that already declared that sale deed is not binding and also liberty was given to file a suit for claiming possession and considering the same while answering the issue No.1 comes to the conclusion that in the absence of declaration, suit is maintainable since already the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.70/2008. 13. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly taking into note of earlier judgment passed in the common Judgment of O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 comes to the conclusion that even in the absence of seeking the relief of declaration, suit is maintainable for seeking the relief of possession and in the earlier judgment also given the liberty to file a suit against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.14/2003. It is also not in dispute that the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 has attained finality and the same is taken note of and the appellant’s counsel also not disputes the fact that the judgment and decree of O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 has attained its finality and when such being the case, now he cannot contend that Ex.P.19 was not considered before the Trial Court in O.S.No.66/1993 and even if such document was not considered the appellant ought to have been challenged such judgment and decree and keeping quiet without challenging the same, once again he cannot re- agitate before this Court contending that the original earlier sale deed of the year 1982 was not considered and hence the very contention of the appellant’s counsel that Ex.D.37 and Ex.D.19 are produced in O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.70/2018 and substantive question of law doesn't arise since when the appellant has suffered a judgment and decree in the earlier common judgment of O.S.No.66/1993 and O.S.No.14/2003 and question of re- agitating the same in the present suit doesn't arise. when the judgment and decree has attained its finality. when the judgment and decree has attained its finality. Hence, question of framing substantive question of law as contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant doesn't arise. When both the Courts having taken note of the judgment and decree passed in the earlier common judgment and the same has attained finality and based on the said judgment only they have filed a suit for the relief of handing over the possession and also in the earlier suit, Court has declared that the same is the joint family property and earlier sale deed is not binding and when such reasoning is given and the same has been considered by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court, question of once again considering the factual finding by framing a substantive question of law doesn't arise when there was no any perversity in the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court having considered the material on record. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Second Appeal is dismissed ii) The counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who has not filed the GPA on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 is permitted to file the GPA within 3 days from today.