JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 2. The appellant herein was the defendant in O.S. No. 65 of 1999. The suit in question was decreed by judgment dated 28-1-2005. The appellant was before the lower Appellate Court in RA. No. 9 of 2005. The lower Appellate Court by judgment dated 19-12-2005 confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Against the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the appellant is before this Court. 3. In order to consider as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal, I have heard the learned Counsel in detail and perused the papers. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he has purchased the suit schedule property along with other properties under sale deed dated 27-1-1973. Thereafter, conversion of the land has been made on 17-5-1989 and the layout has been approved by the City Municipality, Gangavathi on 29-12-1995. The grievance with which the plaintiff was before the Trial Court was that the defendant in the suit who is the adjacent property owner had encroached to the extent of 150 x 2 link on the property of the plaintiff. Hence it was contended that the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the said extent which was encroached upon by the defendant. The defendant opposed the suit. It was contended by the defendant that they are in possession of their own land and they have not encroached upon any property belonging to the plaintiff. 5. In the light of the rival contentions put forth before the Trial Court, the Trial Court framed as many as five issues for its consideration. The parties tendered evidence in discharge of the burden cast on them. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and witness was examined as P.W. 2 and documents at Exs. P. 1 to P. 15 were marked. The Secretary of the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and document at Ex. D. 1 was marked. The Trial Court after noticing the evidence available before it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 6. P. 1 to P. 15 were marked. The Secretary of the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and document at Ex. D. 1 was marked. The Trial Court after noticing the evidence available before it has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 6. Since the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the materials on record, more particularly since the Trial Court has relied on survey phodi map which was conducted in the absence of the defendant during the survey, I have perused the manner in which the Trial Court has analysed the evidence. In this regard, it is seen that the Trial Court at the outset has noticed the document at Ex. P. I-original sale deed, in which the plaintiff has purchased the property and also documents at Exs. P. 2 to P. 5 relating to the ownership of the property and the layout having been formed by the plaintiff. Ex. P. 6 is the application said to have been given by the plaintiff to the defendant-Committee for removal of the encroachment and Ex. P. 7 is the Addubasth map. In the light of the said documents, insofar as the property to which the plaintiff claimed ownership, the same was established. With regard to the encroachment as alleged, the document at Ex. P. 9 is the survey phodi sketch map and Ex. P. 10 is the statement recorded during the survey. However, the fact that notice had been served on the defendant is not in dispute and copy of the same is marked at Ex. P. 11 and Ex. P. 12 is another letter issued to the defendant-Committee by the plaintiff and also Ex. P. 13, the legal notice as contemplated under Section 137 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 was also issued and a postal acknowledgement was marked at Ex. P. 14. These documents would indicate that the defendant had sufficient information about the survey. The only reason put forth by the defendant is the during the said period, in view of the assembly elections the buildings belonging to APMC have been used by Election Commission and in that regard they had not taken part in the survey. P. 14. These documents would indicate that the defendant had sufficient information about the survey. The only reason put forth by the defendant is the during the said period, in view of the assembly elections the buildings belonging to APMC have been used by Election Commission and in that regard they had not taken part in the survey. That aspect of the matter has also been appreciated by the Trial Court and specific reference has been made to the document at Ex. P. 11 whereunder the plaintiff had intimated about the survey to defendant. The Trial Court has rightly thereafter proceeded to indicate that even after the said date was over, the defendants have not shown any interest. Hence on noticing the said documents and also noticing the oral evidence tendered through P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 as against the evidence tendered by D.W. 1, the Trial Court has allowed the plaint in part and suit was decreed. In the matter of this nature, where the documentary evidence has been appreciated by the Trial Court and subsequently when the defendant was before the lower Appellate Court and when the lower Appellate Court has re-appreciated the said evidence and arrived at the same finding, at this stage the appellant cannot contend that they were not given proper opportunity when the survey was conducted. 7. Therefore, in a matter of this nature, where both the Courts below have concurrently arrived at the finding of fact that there is encroachment and directed the defendant to remove the encroachment, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.