Judgment :- (This regular second appeal is filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, against the judgment & decree dated 09.01.2002 passed in R.A. No. 46/99 on the file of the civil judge (SR.DN.), Nanjangud, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1999 passed in O.S. No.18/95 on the file of the Addl. civil judge (JR.DN.), Nanjangud and etc.,) This second appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.18/1995 though arises out of a very simple matter, a suit for recovery of possession and both the Courts below have concurrently held against the defendant in decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession, is a typical example of how Courts can go wrong if evidence on record is either not taken into consideration or if the pleadings are not considered in the proper perspective and relevant issues are not framed in the context of the pleadings. This case serves as an ideal example of the courts below not bestowing their attention to the controversy in the suit. The dispute which arises between the parities, which is required to be examined is a typical example of ignoring relevant material on record, a typical example of overlooking admissions made by the plaintiff in the course of his deposition and arrive at an inference which was impossible to arrive at, vitiating the judgment not only of the trial Court but the untenable affirming judgment of the lower Appellate Court. 2. It is because of such reasons this court had admitted the second appeal for examination, notwithstanding the courts below having given a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of possession from the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property- a portion of the house property measuring 9 ft North South and 12 ft East to West forming part of Municipal No.1887/1827 in Chavadi Street of Nanjangud Town. 3. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the house property measuring 23 ¼ ft East to West and 9ft North to South located at Chavadi Street of Nanjangud Town was a house property in the ownership of the plaintiff; that a portion of this house property viz., measuring 12ft East to West and 9ft North to /south had been in the permissive possession of the defendant, who is the brother-in-law of the plaintiff having married his younger sister, that the defendant had been given the house for his accommodation when he was in need of the same; that the defendant had himself constructed two houses in the town, but nevertheless was not vacating and handing over possession of the house in their occupation and therefore, it became necessary to file the suit of recovery of possession from the defendant. The defendant contested the suit and the very simple defence put forward was that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property, which was in occupation of the defendant. The sole defendant pleaded that it was a property belonging to his wife having been given to her by her mother, and contended that the dispute is only because of certain ill feelings between the plaintiff and the defendant, the suit filed, without any right or cause; that the suit was not entitled to the property; that the defendant was residing in the suit premises with his wife from a very long time; that the plaintiff had absolutely no right over the suit schedule property; that he has five other brothers, who all had agreed not to disturb the possession of the defendant and his wife and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs etc. 4. The trial court very strangely formulated the issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession, as to whether he is entitled to the property and what mesne profits and if so what order. The trial court failed to formulate the relevant issue in the first instance as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the property, the defendant having specifically denied that the plaintiff was the owner, it was inevitable that the dispute should have been made an issue, but the trial Court failed to do so. 5. The trial court failed to formulate the relevant issue in the first instance as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the property, the defendant having specifically denied that the plaintiff was the owner, it was inevitable that the dispute should have been made an issue, but the trial Court failed to do so. 5. Parties went to trial on the issues framed by the trial Court an on behalf of the plaintiff, while he himself deposed as PW-1, documents Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, deposed as DW-1 but no documentary evidence was marked. The trial Court purporting to appreciate the evidence on record concluded that while the plaintiff on the strength of Ex.P-1-the assessment register extract was able to make good his case that he was the owner of the property in question which was supported by two tax paid receipts Exs.P-2 and 3 and ExP-4- the lawyer notice calling upon the defendant to vacate the premises and Ex.P-5 being the acknowledgement of serving the legal notice, by making good his version, was of the view that the defendant on the other hand was not able to make good his version; that the portion in his occupation was the property which had been gifted to his wife by her mother, as no gift deed was placed before the Court, though it was pleaded that it has been so registered in her favour. However, Court noticing that the defendant having changed his version that though his mother-in-law wanted to gift the portion in favour of his wife, she having died before the said transaction were completed, all the brothers had agreed not to disturb their possession, but no documentary evidence was placed on record in this regard, but the defendant having deposed that all the brothers having agreed that the defendant and his wife could continue to remain in possession and therefore, having defended the possession only on such statement and not being supported by any documentary evidence thought it proper to believe, the version of the plaintiff and as trial Court found that the defendant was only in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and plaintiff was the owner, plaintiff was entitled to recover possession and accordingly decreed the suit. 6. Against this judgment and decree, the defendant appealed before the lower appellate court. 6. Against this judgment and decree, the defendant appealed before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court though evinced proper awareness while formulating the points for its determination as under; “1.Whether the trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is erroneous and opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case? 3. What order?’ answered the points in the negative and against the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal against which the defendant is in second appeal before this Court. The appellate court also committed the same mistake in scruntinizing the evidence on record not only Ex.P-1, the documentary evidence, but also the very evidence of the plaintiff, particularly, the very admission that he had made during the course of cross-examination. The lower appellate court having fallen into error in line with the trial Court and having dismissed the appeal the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below are required to be examined in this background. 7. Sri. P. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the courts below have committed serious error in law in totally ignoring the material evidence on record totally and arrive at a conclusion independent of the evidence. Submission is that the findings and conclusions are perverse in nature, for a finding which could have been reached in law, that decreeing of the suit being based on such perverse error in appreciation of evidence, it is not sustainable an the appeal has to be allowed and the suit dismissed with costs. 8. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn attention to Ex.P-1 which is an extract from the assessment register of the Town Municipal Office, Nanjangud in respect of the suit property bearing No.1887/1827 and points out that even as per this extract the plaintiff’s ownership of the property was only in respect of an extent of 3.4mtrs x 4mtrs, whereas the plaintiff had claimed ownership of a house property measuring an extent of 23 ¼ ft x 9ft. Submission is that the very extract indicates the ownership of the plaintiff to be in respect of the portion in which he was already in possession and not beyond and that the property bearing Municipal No.1887/1827 measuring 3.4 x4mtrs. Submission is that the very extract indicates the ownership of the plaintiff to be in respect of the portion in which he was already in possession and not beyond and that the property bearing Municipal No.1887/1827 measuring 3.4 x4mtrs. i.e., 9ft x12ft and not 23 1/4 ft x 9 ft as claimed in the plaint. Learned counsel would further draw attention to the deposition of the plaintiff which clearly indicates that the plaintiff had equivocally admitted that the plaintiff did no have any ancestral property that the house property was the property belonging to the mother of the plaintiff; that this property had been shared amongst the six brothers and sister with other sisters having pre-deceased the mother ; that the defendant was deliberately clinging on to the suit property at the instigation of the other brothers of the plaintiff that there were disputes between the plaintiff and his other brother that the plaintiff relied upon only Ex.P1, which ought to reflect owners in respect of the property, which in fact did not reflect ownership in respect of the suit property, particularly for the portion in possession of the defendant. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff who admitted that he was claiming ownership as a sharer of the property owned by his mother and which had been shared amongst all the brothers and only sister whose husband was the defendant, did not even know what was the measurements of the portion of the house property, which had fallen to his share but infact he was already in possession an enjoyment of a portion of the property. Learned counsel points out to the admission that the plaintiff had not even bothered to verify as to whether the Municipal Extract reflect the true position with regard to the extent of share he had got and as reflected in the Register. The relevant portion of the evidence reads as under: “KANNADAM” 9. In a suit claiming for relief before the Court, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to make good his case, to come up with the proper plea and support the plea with by placing evidence. 10. When once a case is contested, the defendant disputes the plaint averments, the disputed facts become the issues between the parties. In a suit claiming for relief before the Court, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to make good his case, to come up with the proper plea and support the plea with by placing evidence. 10. When once a case is contested, the defendant disputes the plaint averments, the disputed facts become the issues between the parties. It is the duty of the trial Court to frame such issues constituting the disputed facts and the parties are required to lead evidence before the Court to prove their respective version so that the issues can be resolved. If the plaintiff claims ownership and ownership is disputed by the defendant, ownership itself become an issue. In such an event, the plaintiff has to make good the ownership i.e., his title to the property with commensurate evidence. In the present case, in the pleading there was nothing beyond claiming that the plaintiff was the owner and with reference to the extract of the Municipal Assessment Extract. The defendant disputed ownership and on the other hand set up ownership through his wife and claimed possession on the strength of the property owned by his wife and that the defendant and his wife living together in the property. Suit itself being one for recovery of possession unless the plaintiff is able to come up with a right, which is the clear title or ownership in the property, there is no way of plaintiff seeking recovery of possession from the defendant, which is admittedly in the durable settled possession of the defendant for the past 15 to 20 years or even more. The document Ex.P1 was the lone supporting evidence to support the case of the plaintiff, which went against him, as the property described therein was only about 9 feet X 12 feet. The plaintiff has not produced any other document and it was not his case that the plaintiff was living elsewhere and the portion which had come to his share and had also been given to the possession of the defendant and he was seeking recovery of such portion. Plaintiffs own case was that he was living adjacent to the suit schedule property and was already in occupation of an extent of 9feet X12 feet and suing for recovery of possession in respect of rest of the house property in possession of the defendant. Plaintiffs own case was that he was living adjacent to the suit schedule property and was already in occupation of an extent of 9feet X12 feet and suing for recovery of possession in respect of rest of the house property in possession of the defendant. That means the plaintiff is required to establish his title, which undoubtedly he derives only through his mother and in a partition amongst the brothers and the sisters, establish that the property of the mother falling to his share was not only the portion in his own occupation but also the portion in occupation of the defendant through his wife. The plaintiff had also neither sued nor made good the case that the defendant had been given any other share, which was in their occupation of possession. Even if the theory of the gifts is discarded, the defendant’s wife being a daughter and admittedly being entitled to a share belonging to the property owned by her mother, what was that portion given had never been indicated by the plaintiff. In any view of the matter while a share in favour of the wife of the defendant is not disputed not can it be, what exact share plaintiff got whether it was much more than 9 feet X 12 feet, which was already in his occupation had never been made good to prove that the total extent by his share was beyond 9 feet X 12 feet. If the plaintiff was the owner even in terms of the extract of the Municipal Assessment Register of a house property measuring only 9 feet X 12 feet and he was already in occupation of this extent, there is no way for plaintiff suing for recovery of possession of any other extent of property or other portion of the extract of the Municipal Assessment Register of a house property measuring only 9 feet X 12 feet and he was already in occupation of this extent, there is no way for plaintiff suing for recovery of possession of any other extent of property or other portion of the property in the very house property, which was once owned by his mother. 11. 11. The Courts below have totally missed not only the documentary evidence Exs.P1, P2 & P3 being only the tax paid receipts in respect of the same number but also the very material, oral evidence of the plaintiff himself making clear admissions. Judgments and Decrees passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is clearly not sustainable in law and as such, the substantial question of law, which has been framed by this Court at the time of admission is answered holding that the Courts below have failed in not only properly appreciating the evidence on record but infact have concluded to arrive at findings clearly opposite and contrary to what could have been inferred on the evidence and therefore the Appeal is allowed and Judgment and Decrees passed by the Courts below is set asides. The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs throughout.