JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.—This appeal by the legal representatives of the original defendant in O.S. No. 13/1984 on the file of the Munsiff at Malavalli is directed against the concurrent judgment of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and injunction in the alternative for possession, in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 2. The subject matter of the suit is the country tailed house bearing VP. No. 414 situated in Mallikyathanahalli Bluff Post. 3. The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that, the suit schedule property is ancestral property acquired by his grandfather and since then, as kartha of the family, the plaintiff and his family members have been enjoying the said property. It was further contended by the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant who has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property is trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It was also pleaded in the plaint that during the lifetime of the plaintiffs father Sri, R. Krishna Murthy, the defendant initiated revenue proceedings which went up to Revenue Appellate Tribunal to establish his right in the property and he failed in those proceedings, and subsequently the defendant filed suit in O.S. No. 152/1978 for declaration and permanent injunction over the suit schedule property, which came to be dismissed. 4. The sole defendant appeared before the trial Court and contested the suit. He denied the case of the plaintiff, He contended that 1.00 acre of land was granted to him in Survey No. 369 of Belkawadi Village under Dharkasth and the grant certificate was also issued by the Tahsildar, Mallikyathanahalli, to him on 26.6.1961. According to him, the property mentioned in the suit schedule falls within the extent of 1.00 acre of land granted to him. He further contended that since the plaintiffs father interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land granted to him, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 2156/1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Mandya against the father of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction and on the advise of the elders as also the panchayathdars, the plaintiffs father agreed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land granted, to the defendant, therefore, the said suit was withdrawn on 30.3.1965. He further contended that once again, since the plaintiffs father interfered with the peaceful, possession and enjoyment of the property, he again filed suit in O.S. No. 152/1978 on the file of the Munsiff, Malavalli, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 1.00 acre of land in block No. 74 of Survey Mo. 369, Beiakawadi Village granted to him. The said suit came to be dismissed for default on 30.5.1.979. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC praying for restoration of the suit and the said Miscellaneous case was also dismissed. It was further alleged that during the pendency of the said appeal, since the plaintiffs father died, an application was filed for bringing the legal representatives of the respondent therein. The application came to be dismissed, as such the suit in O.S. No. 152/1978 filed by the defendant against the father of the plaintiff was not decided on merits. He contended that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as such, the plaintiff has no manner of right title or interest over the same, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence by judgment dated 29.7.1994 held that the plaintiff has proved his title to the property and also he has been in possession of the property. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff as the owner of the property and restrained the defendants by means of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the legal representatives of the defendant filed appeal in R.A. No. 134/1994 on the file of Civil-Judge (Sr. Dn) Mandya, which was later transferred to Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Maddur, and re-numbered as R.A. No. 37/1999. By Judgment dated 27.2.2001, the appeal came to be allowed, and the judgment of the trial Court was set-aside. Dn) Mandya, which was later transferred to Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Maddur, and re-numbered as R.A. No. 37/1999. By Judgment dated 27.2.2001, the appeal came to be allowed, and the judgment of the trial Court was set-aside. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiff preferred RSA No. 328/2001 before this Court which came to be allowed by judgment dated 25.8.2006, and the matter was remitted to the lower appellate Court with a direction to appoint a Court Commissioner for local inspection of suit schedule property to find out as to who is in actual possession. Thereafter upon establishment of Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) at Malavalli, the remanded appeal was transferred to that Court and re-numbered as R.A. No. 22/2007. As directed by this Court, a Commissioner was appointed for local inspection and the Commissioner upon inspection submitted the report to the effect that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, an additional issue was framed in this regard by the lower appellate Court, it appears the parties did not lead any further evidence. 6. The Lower Appellate Court on. reappreciation of the oral find documentary evidence, more particularly by placing reliance on the judgment of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal as per Ex. P1, whereunder the order canceling the grant in favour of the defendant was affirmed, held that the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit schedule property. In view of this the Lower Appellate Court having found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and as per the report of the Court Commissioner, the defendant is in possession of the same and as the right of the plaintiff as title holder of the property to get possession is not extinguished, held that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession. In that view of the matter, the Lower Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the defendants and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting the relief of declaration, directed the LRs. of the defendant, to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 30 days. It is against these judgment of the Courts below, the appellants are before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. T.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment of the Courts below. 8. of the defendant, to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 30 days. It is against these judgment of the Courts below, the appellants are before this Court. 7. I have heard Sri. T.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment of the Courts below. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Courts below are perverse, illegal and contrary to the pleadings as well as evidence on record. It is his further submission that in the plaint, what was specifically pleaded was that the suit schedule property was acquired by his grandfather, as such, it is ancestral property, whereas, during the evidence, it was sought to be contended that the suit schedule property along with the neighbouring portions was granted to the fattier of the plaintiff by the Revenue Authorities and in this regard there has been no pleading and since the plaintiff has not produced any title deed to establish his title to the suit schedule property, the decree granted by the Courts below is without any basis, as such, it is liable to be set aside, It is his further submission that in. the absence of any cross-objection by the respondent plaintiff, with regard to the relief of possession, the learned counsel for the appellant had no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, as such, the judgment of the lower appellate Court to that extent is without jurisdiction and bad in law. A copy of the plaint is also made available for my perusal. No doubt, in the plaint it is stated that the suit schedule property is ancestral property acquired by the grandfather of the plaintiff, However, in Para-3 of the plaint it is specifically pleaded that during the lifetime of the plaintiffs father, the defendant initiated proceedings before the Revenue Courts and the matter went up to Revenue Appellate Tribunal, wherein the defendant failed A copy of the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal has been marked as Ex. P1. Both the Courts below have extensively referred to the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. 9. P1. Both the Courts below have extensively referred to the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. 9. From the judgment of the Courts below, it is manifestly clear that the land bearing Survey No. 369 was an inam land and it vested in the Government, At that time several persons were found in unauthorised occupation of the property in different extents. Thereafter, the Revenue authorities took steps to grant the lands to the respective persons, who were in possession of the land. For that purpose, the land was divided into different blocks totally numbering 73 and an extent of 3.00 acres in Block No. 73 was granted to the plaintiffs father. The defendant claimed that there were 74 blocks in the land and Block No. 74 to an extent of 1.00 acre was granted to him. 10. On coining to know of the said claim, the Deputy Commissioner, after enquiry, cancelled the grant in favour of the defendant, The said order cancelling the grant was challenged by defendant before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, way back in the year 1969. As per Ex. P1, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant herein, wherein the Revenue Appellate Tribunal considering the materials placed on record, held that there were only 73 blocks in land bearing Survey No. 369 and there was no Block No. 74 and that the land claimed by the defendant overlaps with the land granted to the father of the plaintiff in Block No. 73. Therefore, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirmed the order cancelling the grant in favour of the defendant. Thus, the defendant failed in his attempt to get order of grant. From this, it is further clear that the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest over any portion of the land bearing Survey No. 369 situated at Belakawadi Village. In the very order there is clear reference to the fact that Block No. 73 in Survey No. 369 was granted to the father of the plaintiff. No doubt the grant certificate is not produced before the Court, Nevertheless, the undisputed fact as noticed in Ex. P1 would clearly establish the title of the plaintiff in respect of the land to an extent of 3.00 acres in Survey No. 369, which comprised in Block No. 73. No doubt the grant certificate is not produced before the Court, Nevertheless, the undisputed fact as noticed in Ex. P1 would clearly establish the title of the plaintiff in respect of the land to an extent of 3.00 acres in Survey No. 369, which comprised in Block No. 73. Therefore, merely because the grant certificate is not produced, the judgment of the Courts below declaring title of the plaintiff cannot be termed as perverse. No doubt, the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit schedule property was an ancestral property acquired by his grand fattier, whereas, the grant was made in the name of the plaintiffs father, This does not make much difference in the light of decision rendered under Ex. P1. It is an undisputed fact that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal became final, as the defendant did not question the same in the higher forums. As noticed by the Courts below it is clear from the very contentions in the written statement, the defendant subsequently filed two more suits both for declaration of his title and injunction and both the suits were dismissed. Even according to the defendants, the first suit was withdrawn while the second suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and the appeal filed by him against the order refusing to restore the suit was also dismissed. Thus, the attempt made by the defendant to get declaration of title to the property claimed by him as granted by the revenue authorities failed. Therefore, the Courts below, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, are justified in declaring title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. The report of the Commissioner which is relied on by the Lower Appellate Court clearly indicate that the suit house is situated within the extent; of 3.00 acres of land granted to the plaintiff. Of course the Trial Court granted relief of permanent injunction in addition to the relief of declaration by recording a finding of fact that the plaintiff has proved his possession of suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to consider the alternative prayer for possession. Of course the Trial Court granted relief of permanent injunction in addition to the relief of declaration by recording a finding of fact that the plaintiff has proved his possession of suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to consider the alternative prayer for possession. In the light of the specific finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has proved his possession of suit schedule property and granting relief of permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants, there was no need or requirement for the plaintiff to file any appeal or cross-objection. The Lower Appellate Court after affirming the decree granted by the trial Court regarding declaration of title and in the light of the report of the Court commissioner that the legal representatives of defendant are in possession of the suit schedule property, directed the defendant to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff. In the light of the report of Court commissioner, the Lower Appellate Court framed an additional issue as to whether the plaintiff in the alternative, entitled for possession in the event of not establishing possession as on the date of suit. Parties did not lead additional evidence in spite of grant of opportunities. It is not the ease of appellant/defendant that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. In the light of his stand in the written statement wherein he had disputed title of plaintiff and claimed title in himself, he could not take-up a plea of adverse possession. Therefore, once having held that the plaintiff has proved Ills title to the schedule property, he would be entitled to get possession of the property as that right had not been extinguished. In that view of the matter and in the light of the powers of appellate Court as provided by Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC, the relief of possession granted by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be termed as without jurisdiction or as illegal. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. 11. In the light; of the undisputed facts and the report of the Commissioner, the decree granted by the Lower Appellate Court directing the appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property cannot be termed as perverse or as illegal. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants. 11. In the light; of the undisputed facts and the report of the Commissioner, the decree granted by the Lower Appellate Court directing the appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property cannot be termed as perverse or as illegal. The findings recorded by the Courts below are purely questions of fact and the findings are based on appreciation of evidence. This Court sitting in second appeal cannot reappreciate the said evidence and record a different finding. Under these circumstances, I find no question of law muchless substantial question of law in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.