M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant's second appeal having suffered an adverse judgment in the lower appellate court. Plaintiff puttathayamma brought the suit for bare injunction in original suit No. 48 of 1984 on the file of the munsuf, at nagamangala. 2, the plaint allegations were that she purchased the suit schedule property under exhibit p-1 a sale deed executed by one thimmegowda and that she had purchased survey No. 140/8 of p. Neralekere village of nagamangala hobli, nagamangala taluk in the year 1974; that defendant-1 and defendants-2 to 5 were interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property she had purchased and therefore, they may be restrained by a permanent injunction. She described the first defendant as the daughter of one hanumaiah @ karigowda, defendant-1, who filed the written statement and contested the suit inter alia averred that she was the second wife of thimmegowda the vendor of the plaintiff; that thimmegowda never intended to sell survey No. 40/8; what was sold was really survey No. 140/10 as was clear by the boundaries in the sale deed. The plaintiff had deliberately suppressed the boundaries in the sale deed and given a different set of boundaries in the plaint schedule in order to wrongfully claim property she had not purchased under exhibit p-l the sale deed. She also alleged that defendants-2 to 5 were not necessary parties. On such pleadings as many as three issues came to be framed by the trial court: 1) whether the plaintiff proves that she has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property? 2) is there any interference by the defendant? 3) is the plaintiff entitled to an order of permanent injunction? On all the issues, the trial court found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. ( 2 ) THE munsiff accepted the argument advanced for the first defendant that the boundaries should prevail in the sale deed having regard to the ruling of this court in the case of Smt. Kamalamma v kenche gowda, AIR 1972 mys. P. 184. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as exhibit p-l, on which he relied upon, did not identify the property described in the suit schedules. It is only in that circumstance, he came to dismiss the suit. P. 184. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as exhibit p-l, on which he relied upon, did not identify the property described in the suit schedules. It is only in that circumstance, he came to dismiss the suit. ( 3 ) ON appeal, the trial court reversed the finding on reappreciating the evidence on record. ( 4 ) AT this stage, it is useful to state the material before the courts. The plaintiff got examined as many as five witnesses including herself and got marked as many as ten documents which consisted of exhibit p-l the sale deed, exhibits p-2 to p-7 being certified copies of r. t. c. extracts, exhibits p-8 and p-9 the revenue receipts for having paid the kanayam and exhibit p-10 a kandayam patta. The defendant-1 got examined herself and one other witness and there was no document marked on her behalf. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs oral evidence as well as pleading was to the effect that what was really purchased was survey No. 140/8 as correctly stated in the sale deed and my mistake the boundaries were wrongly described and that during the lifetime of thimmegowda, he never questioned the possession and cultivation by the plaintiff of the land she had purchased. She, in her oral evidence adduced, denied that her husband had any collusion with the village accountantin getting the revenue register marked or entered wrongly as there was no fraud played on thimmegowda who was said to be illiterate as alleged in the written statement. It also came out in the evidence adduced by both the parties that the defendant married (if the marriage is held to have been proved at all) some years after the sale deed was executed. Even the defendants own witness d. w. 2 had admitted that there was no collusion or reason for village accountant to collude to create entries in the register in favour of plaintiff. Even the defendants own witness d. w. 2 had admitted that there was no collusion or reason for village accountant to collude to create entries in the register in favour of plaintiff. ( 6 ) THE lower appellate court has found fault with the trial judge not only for misunderstanding the ruling of this court in kamalamma's case supra, but also for the reason that it failed completely to look at the pleadings of the plaintiff where the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint had clearly stated that the description in the sale deed exhibit p-l and the description in the schedule did not tally because of the mistake made at the time of describing what was intended to be sold, namely, survey No. 140/8 measuring 9 guntas and not any other land. Description that to the east there was nalla was incorrect and on account of the fact, defendant-1 had taken advantage and with the assistance of defendants-2 to 5 had tried to interfere with the cultivation of the suit schedule land. The total non-reference to this aspect of the pleading of the plaintiff and non-traverse by the defendant of that portion of the pleading appears to have guided the lower appellate court to place strong reliance on the presumption arising out of Section 133 of the land revenue act in favour of exhibits p-2 to p-7 which clearly showed that from the year of purchase till the date of suit, survey No. 140/8 was found to be in possession and cultivation of the plaintiff. Unless the presumption was rebutted, the court was bound to give effect to the law. Beyond the oral evidence of d. ws. 1 and 2, there was no document produced by them to rebut the presumption. In fact, d. w. 1 on her examination had not denied the sale. She had admitted that her husband had sold the property to the plaintiff. The only contention was that the property sold was really not survey number 140/8, but 140/10 to which the schedule or description of the boundaries in the sale deed ex. P-l would fit in. In fact, d. w. 1 on her examination had not denied the sale. She had admitted that her husband had sold the property to the plaintiff. The only contention was that the property sold was really not survey number 140/8, but 140/10 to which the schedule or description of the boundaries in the sale deed ex. P-l would fit in. It is in that circumstance, the lower appellate court also relied upon very same decision on kamalamma's case and came to the conclusion that where dominent intention was to sell a particular property and that particular property was described by a specific survey number and the extent, that boundaries in such cases should be ignored (see paragraphs 22 to 26 as reported in the all India reporter at page 184 ). It is in those circumstances, the lower appellate court found fault with the trial court and decreed the suit and granted the injunction. ( 7 ) IN this court, Mr. iyer appearing for the appellanthas strenuously contended that the lower appellate court was not correct and a question of law did arise for consideration in this second appeal inasmuch as the interpretation of the document was involved and that would be a substantial question of law. ( 8 ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case,the question of interpreting the document does not arise at all. Document is a sale deed is admitted on both sides. Whether the sale deed representing the sale of a particular survey number of some other survey number, would be a question of fact and not a question of law. On the evidence adduced and having regard to the presumption under Section 133, the lower appellate court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff in order to get the benefit of presumption as per exhibits p-2 to p-7 relied upon to prove the possession and cultivation of survey No. 140/8. The lower appellate court recorded a finding of fact on the evidence before it. Therefore, argument advanced is not well founded. Second appeal fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .