JUDGMENT A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.—The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff and have filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit instituted by the deceased plaintiff seeking injunction against the respondent herein from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, i.e., a site bearing House List No. 78 situated within the limits of Navile Grama Tana, Channarayaptna Taluk measuring east west 7 yards, south north 30 yards with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the erstwhile owner of the suit property is one Police Patel Seetharamaiah and after his death, his two sons N. Narasimha Murthy and N.S. Nagarajaiah executed a registered sale deed dated 7.2.1968 in favour of the father of the plaintiff. Since from the date of the sale transaction, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property and in a partition held between the plaintiff and other co-parceners, the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff. He has been in possession of the suit property peacefully without any sort of obstruction from anybody and it is the defendant who is said to have caused the obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and in these circumstances, the deceased plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit for injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But any how, it is the version of the defendant that the suit property was owned by one Kashipathaiah, s/o Channakeshavaiah of Kembal Village who was the original owner in possession of the site and after the death of Kashipathaiah, his wife Thimmavva and sons alongwith A. Narasimha Murthy the son, sold the said site measuring 36 x 108 ft. in favour of N. Anantharamaih, the brother of the defendant under registered sale deed dated 17.7.1967 for and on behalf of the joint family of the defendant and his brothers. They were in possession of the suit property all along and as there was no cordial relationship between the members of the family, there was a partition and the suit property fell to the share of the defendant and since then, he claims to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They were in possession of the suit property all along and as there was no cordial relationship between the members of the family, there was a partition and the suit property fell to the share of the defendant and since then, he claims to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the circumstances, it is the defense of the respondent that the suit instituted by the plaintiff has no merits and sought for the dismissal of the suit. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court. “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that one N. Seetharamaiah and his sons were the owners of suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the sale deed dated 7.2.1962 is concocted? 4. Whether the defendant, proves that the suit schedule, property was belongs to one Kashipathaiah s/o Channakeshavaiah? 5. Whether the defendant proves the purchase of suit schedule property by his joint family? 6. Whether the defendant proves his ownership and possession on suit schedule property? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for? 8. To what order or decree?” The plaintiff examined four witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to P18. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and two other witnesses D.Ws. 2 and 3 and got exhibited the documents Exs. D1 to D6. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material, on record held issue No. 1 in negative, issue No. 2 so far as the possession is concerned though in the judgment, it is mentioned as affirmative, it answered the same-in negative whereas issue Nos. 4 and 5 were answered in affirmative and issue No. 6 in negative. Ultimately, the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and that there is unlawful obstruction decreed the suit of the deceased plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in R.A. 4/2002 and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the instant appeal has been filed. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in R.A. 4/2002 and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the instant appeal has been filed. 2. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law has been raised: “Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has not established his possession over the property, ignoring the material documents produced in the case?” 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the respondent. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that both the Courts below committed an error in not declaring him as the absolute owner in possession of the suit property though from the title deeds, the name of the deceased plaintiff appear in the possessor’s column of the property extract and despite the other material, regarding the payment of tax of the suit property and, therefore, it is his contention that though the Trial Court granted a decree, the Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit. 5. So far as the source of title is concerned, the deceased plaintiff states that the property in question was owned by Police Patel Seetharamaiah and that his sons Narasimhamurthy and Nagarajaiah sold the suit property to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 7.2.1968 which has been produced at Ex. P1. But any how, the perusal of the records produced by the plaintiff, does not reveal any material to prove that Police Patel Seetharamaiah was the owner of the property at any time prior to the sale deed. What the plaintiff has produced is the sale deed Ex. P1 executed by the sons of Seetharamaiah in favour of the deceased plaintiff, the property extract of the suit property wherein there is a pencil entry showing the number of the suit property as 78 and there is no mention in this document as to for which year the property extract relates to. The plaintiff had applied for permission to put up construction of the building and in this regard, he has produced Exs. P2 and P3 the permission accorded by the Municipal Authority to put up the construction of the building, Exs. The plaintiff had applied for permission to put up construction of the building and in this regard, he has produced Exs. P2 and P3 the permission accorded by the Municipal Authority to put up the construction of the building, Exs. P4 to P13 are the tax paid receipts produced by the deceased to endorse the payment of tax. Ex. P14 is the license and Ex. P15 is the power of attorney executed by the deceased plaintiff in favour of one Sri. N.L. Ramesh. He has also produced Ex. P16 the receipt having lodged the complaint to the Police. So the perusal of these documents though prove the fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under the sale deed Ex. P1, but they are not sufficient to find out as to whether the persons who executed the sale deed had any title to the suit property. The plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that Police Patel Seetharamaiah was the owner and was in possession of the suit property prior to the sale transaction. 6. But at the same time, as could be seen from the evidence led by the defendant and the documents produced, Exs. D3 is the sale deed of the defendant and it reveals that the suit property was purchased by the brother of the defendant under registered sale deed dated 17.7.1967 much prior to the document at Ex. P1. As contended by the defendant, the suit property was earlier owned by Kashipathaiah and after his death, the property was inherited by his wife and sons who executed the sale deed Ex. D3 dated 17.7.1967 in favour of N. Anantharamaiah the brother of the defendant and in the partition amongst the brothers, the suit property fell to the share of the defendant. Ex. D3 is the registered sale deed and so far as the title of the vendors is concerned, they have produced Ex. D4 the extract of the property register for the year 1954-55 pertaining to the suit property and it reveals the name of Kashipathaiah son of Channakeshavaiah and further, on issuance of the summons by the Court, the Grama Panchayath Navile produced the registers pertaining to the suit property and the register is marked as Ex. D6. The perusal of an entry at Ex. D6(a) reveals that in respect of House Nos. D6. The perusal of an entry at Ex. D6(a) reveals that in respect of House Nos. 99 and 100 the name of Narasimhamurthy, son of Seetharamaiah was entered. This entry would go to establish that Narasimhamurthy, son of Seetharamaiah from whom the title is claimed by the plaintiff were the owners of property bearing Nos. 99 and 100 and just below the same, there is a mention in Kannada which is translated into English ‘To write as No. 78’. There is no initial for this insertion of No. 78 to the House property Nos. 99 and 100. So in the context of this entry, it can be said that Narasimhamurty, s/o Seetharamaiah, though were the owners of the property bearing Nos. 99 and 100, they were subsequently shown as owners of House No. 78 because of the entry stated supra. In the absence of any certification or mutation, the entries cannot be changed. So, this would add strength to the case of the defendant to the effect that Police Patel Seetharamaiah, father of Narasimhamurthy was not the owner of the suit property and the sale deed executed by Narasimhamurthy and Nagarajaiah sons of Police Patel Seetharamaih as the vendors have not conveyed any title to the suit property under the registered sale deed at Ex. P1. 7. Further, if we look into the documents produced by the defendants he has produced Exs. D1 and D2 the tax paid receipts in respect of the suit property for the year 1991-92 the original sale deed Ex. D3, the property extract of the suit property which was standing in the name of Kashipathaiah, the erstwhile owner of the suit property and this extract is for the period 1954-55. So taking into consideration the fact that the defendant had acquired the title to the suit property on the basis of a valid sale deed. It is well established principle of law that the possession follows the title. 8. Admittedly, the suit property is a site and so far as the possession is concerned, though the plaintiff and the defendant have examined the witnesses to show their respective possession over the suit property, it is the conclusion of both the Courts below that the suit property mentioned in Exs. D1 and D3 is one and the same and this conclusion is not in dispute before this Court as well. D1 and D3 is one and the same and this conclusion is not in dispute before this Court as well. Except the fact that the plaintiff applied for permission to put up construction and a license was granted to him, there is nothing to show that he has been in possession of the suit property and unless a person having a title to the property sells the same, there is no question of transfer of possession from the person who had no title at all. So in this context, if the material placed on record is perused, in the context of the oral evidence led by the parties, though there is a controversy as regards the possession is concerned, the defendant has the best title because he purchased the property from its erstwhile owner whose name was appearing in the registers maintained by the Village Panchayath and when a person having a title executes the sale deed, there is a reference in the sale deed itself that the possession is handed over to the defendant and he has paid the tax and so far as the entry of the name of the plaintiff in the property extract is concerned, it is a pencil entry. So, though the Trial Court granted a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that issue No. 1 was answered in negative and it is mentioned that issue No. 2 is answered in affirmative. The perusal of the finding arrived at by the Trial Court answering issue No. 1 in negative, would have drawn an inference that the possession passes to the person who is the title holder and the mere entry in the property extract ExP.4 cannot be accepted for the purpose of holding that the plaintiff has proved his possession. 9. The finding of the Trial Court so far as the possession is concerned, is improper and unacceptable for the reason that it has not taken into consideration the validity of the title and the principle that the possession follows the title. The First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the material placed on record and on appreciation of the same has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his possession. The First Appellate Court has taken into consideration the material placed on record and on appreciation of the same has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his possession. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellants have not made out any grounds to call for interference in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the appellants for injunction. In that view of the matter, I answer the substantial question of law in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No costs.