ORDER : Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J. This is an appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 3-12-1992 in A.S.No.80 of 1986 on the file of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry setting aside the decree and judgment dated 28-4-1986 in O.S.No.782 of 1977 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Rajahmundry. The plaintiffs are the appellants. 2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: “15 persons as plaintiffs jointly filed a suit for bare permanent injunction against the sole respondent-defendant Agricultural Market Committee in respect of plaint schedule property described as house plot Nos. 135 to 140, 140-A, 140-B, 141 to 147 said to be situated in T.S.No.812 of Haripuram Colony, Rajahmundry Municipality. They claim that K. Jagannatha Gopal Rao and Sadasiva Krishna Rao are the owners of the land in R.S. Nos. 31, 33, 811 and 34 bearing Town Survey No. 812 of Rajahmundry Municipality and they prepared a layout and got it approved by the Municipality as house plots. They also claim that the plaintiffs purchased plot numbers described in the plaint schedule and plaintiffs 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 15 had constructed thatched houses and sheds and plaintiffs 2, 5, 9 and 12 constructed terraced houses and plaintiffs 7, 13, and 4 laid foundations for constructing terraces and all of them are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. They claim that on the north of their plots, there is a drain and to the north of the said drain there is a land in R.S.No. 36/3 which belonged to Ramakrishna Mission. They also claim that in 1971, the defendant purchased the said site from Ramakrishna Mission and got their land surveyed and it is threatening to trespass into plaintiffs' house sites. They sought the relief of permanent injunction. The respondent-defendant contested the suit. It claims that the plaintiffs have encroached into the site purchased by the defendant and began to make constructions. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. On a consideration of the said evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside by II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry in an appeal preferred by defendant. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal. 3. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. On a consideration of the said evidence, the trial court decreed the suit. The decree and judgment of the trial court are set aside by II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry in an appeal preferred by defendant. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred the present appeal. 3. At the time of admission of this appeal, the learned admission Judge treated the following points formulated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal as substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed substantial legal errors in not going into the question and giving a finding on adverse possession. Having regard to the admitted fact the Appellants were in possession of the land in question by constructing houses long prior to the purchase by the respondent/defendant? (2) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in not referring to the fact that the defendants were not in possession to establish with reference to its title and also with reference to its survey plan and measurements through survey Department and the same should have been made to the Lower Appellate Court to reject the case of the defendant? (3) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in appointing the Advocate-Commissioner and to accept his report without examining the Commissioner and without considering the objections filed by the Appellants for the report? (4) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed substantial legal errors in proceeding to base its conclusions upon the Commissioner's report which was not made available in the Trial Court? (5) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in rejecting the plaintiffs' case without giving finding that the land in occupation of the plaintiffs namely the suit land falls in Survey No.36/3 or 136/3 according to the contentions of the defendant and whether the land falls in various survey Nos. as claimed by the appellants? (6) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the burden of proof lies on ignoring the principles when the entire evidence is let-in. The rule relating to onus of proof pales into insignificance? Points: 4. The plaintiffs alleged that they purchased different house plots under different sale deeds from the owners concerned. They did not produce their sale deeds to prove that they purchased any of the house plots described in the plaint schedule. The rule relating to onus of proof pales into insignificance? Points: 4. The plaintiffs alleged that they purchased different house plots under different sale deeds from the owners concerned. They did not produce their sale deeds to prove that they purchased any of the house plots described in the plaint schedule. The sale deed of 5th plaintiff alone was produced and marked as Ex.A-7. The sale deed Ex.A-8 shows that the 5th plaintiff sold it to somebody else. Ex.A-9 sale deed does not relate to any of the parties to the suit. It relates to P.W.4. He is not one of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they have got a legal right to any of the plots described in the plaint schedule. It is necessary to mention that in the plaint schedule survey numbers in which the concerned house plots are situated are also not mentioned. The defendant produced its sale deed Ex.B-1. Plaintiffs admit that the defendant purchased the land in R.S.No. 36/3. Accordingly to the defendant, under the guise of purchase of some plots, the plaintiffs are encroaching into the site purchased by the defendant. During the pendency of the appeal, the lower appellate Court suo motu appointed an advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit property, measure the lands with reference to the title deeds of the parties, localise the lands and file his report. The concerned advocate-Commissioner filed his report. The lower appellate court marked the report as Ex.C-2 and the sketch prepared by the municipal surveyor as Ex.C-1, Exs.C-1 and C-2 disclose that as many as 17 persons encroached into the site purchased by the defendant. Among them, the plaintiffs 15, 12, 9, 8, 3, 2 and 1 are the encroachers into the site belonging to the defendant. It is already noticed that the plaintiffs did not produce their title deeds. They did not also disclose in the plaint schedule the boundaries or survey numbers of the house plots purchased by them. As many of the plaintiffs trespassed into the site of the defendant, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and declined to grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. They did not also disclose in the plaint schedule the boundaries or survey numbers of the house plots purchased by them. As many of the plaintiffs trespassed into the site of the defendant, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and declined to grant the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate court did not give an opportunity to plaintiffs to examine the Commissioner and also did not consider the objections filed by the plaintiffs before it. It is to be stated that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they wanted to examine the Commissioner and the lower appellate court did not permit them to examine or cross examine the Commissioner. Appellants did not petition before this court seeking permission to adduce additional oral evidence and examine the Court Commissioner as a witness on their behalf. The above contention is not tenable. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the land of the defendant is in R.S. No. 36/3 and if there are any encroachments by any of the plaintiffs, the sole remedy of the defendant is to file a separate suit and evict the plaintiffs. This is not the correct approach to decide the present appeal. The plaintiffs are seeking the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the defendant is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the house plots belonging to the plaintiffs. Even according to the avernments in the plaint, many of the plaintiffs have already made constructions. Majority of those constructions are found to be not in the house plots described in the plaint schedule but in the site belonging to the defendant. If relief of permanent injunction is granted against defendant, in the circumstances of this appeal it virtually amounts to granting permanent injunction against the true owner and in favour of trespassers. In a decision reported in K. Ankaiah and others v. T.T.D., 2002 (6) ALT 170 in Para 24 of the judgment, this court held as follows: "24. If relief of permanent injunction is granted against defendant, in the circumstances of this appeal it virtually amounts to granting permanent injunction against the true owner and in favour of trespassers. In a decision reported in K. Ankaiah and others v. T.T.D., 2002 (6) ALT 170 in Para 24 of the judgment, this court held as follows: "24. Consideration of various decisions cited at the time of hearing of this revision petition clearly indicate that person not having any legal right over disputed property, even if he is in possession of the disputed property, when such a person is not lawfully entitled to continue in possession of the disputed property and any person whose possession is to be treated as illegal or unlawful possession, will not be entitled to seek the relief of injunction against the true owner." Further, if any injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs on the presumption that it relates to the land in T.S.No.812, it will be construed that the injunction relates to the houses constructed by the plaintiffs. Many of the houses are in the land of defendant. The plaintiffs did not approach the court with clean hands. When they have constructed the houses in the land belonging to the defendant, they suppressed that fact and falsely pleaded that they constructed houses in the house plots described in the plaint schedule. They tried to mislead the court by making false averments in the plaint. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs are not entitled for discretionary relief of permanent injunction in their favour. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate court. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.