8.1. No doubt, the defendants has secured a judgment and decree in O.S.No.85/1998 but the plaintiffs have challenged the said decree on the ground that the same is obtained by playing fraud on the Court and by making fraudulent and fictitious person as defendants in the suit namely, Kamale who is the non-existent person and no such person is forthcoming in the revenue records. It is also the case of defendants that mother of defendant No.1-Kamashetty had purchased the suit schedule property from one Lakshmi. If that is the case, khatha ought to have been transferred from the said Lakshmi to the name of mother of defendant namely, Puttananjamma, whereas Ex.D3 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 02.12.1946 would mention records standing in the name of Smt.Lakshmi who is the vendor as per the defendants of their mother namely, Puttananjamma. If the case of the defendants is to be believed that Puttananjamma who is the mother of defendant No.1 having purchased the property from one Lakshmi, who in turn purchased the property from Kamala , the name in the revenue records should reflect the vendors respectively. However, no such document has been produced to show that originally Kamala was the owner of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, said Kamala,
