JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy J.—The Plaintiff in O.S. 158/2003 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.dn) & JMFC, Gauribidanur, having succeeded by Judgment and decree dt. 29.6.2006 allowing the suit for permanent injunction, in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 183 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas, including kharab, at Varavani village, Manchenahalli hobli, Gowribidanur taluk, which when called in question in R.A. 121/2006 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge & CJM. Chikkaballapur, instituted by the defendant, and allowed by Judgment and decree dt. 8.11.2011 and O.S. 158/2003 dismissed, has preferred this second appeal. Appellant instituted O.S. 158/2003 for permanent injunction asserting that the suit schedule property being ancestral was inherited consequent upon the death of his father by name Munishamappa, eight years prior to the institution of the suit. In addition, it was asserted that the deceased H.M. Munishamappa had mortgaged the plaint schedule property to one Nyathappa though its possession was retained and the mortgage redeemed by the mortgager and therefore the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest. Since the defendant proclaimed that his father had purchased the suit schedule property and the document of title though false and not acted upon, is said to be the cause of action for the suit. The defendant, on notice, entered appearance, resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments and contended that his father by name Narasimhaiah purchased the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration from Munishamappa, S/o Ramakka under a sale deed dt. 15.11.1965 duly registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Gowribidanur and that the plaintiff was not the son of said Munishamappa nor was in possession of the suit schedule property, while the defendant is cultivating the property in question. According to the defendant having succeeded to the property on the death of his father, on 14.8.1990, the revenue records, standing in the name of his father was mutated into his name. 2. The trial Court in the premise of the pleadings of the parties framed three issues whereafter parties let in evidence, whence the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and marked 13 documents as Exs. P1 to p13, while the defendant was examined as DW-1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. 3. 2. The trial Court in the premise of the pleadings of the parties framed three issues whereafter parties let in evidence, whence the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and marked 13 documents as Exs. P1 to p13, while the defendant was examined as DW-1 and marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. 3. The trial court on the material on record and the pleadings, though observed that in cross examination PW1 admitted to the fact that in the year 1965 Munishamappa sold the property to one Narasimhaiah under a sale deed, as also the fact of mortgage of the suit schedule property by Munishamappa in favour of one Nyathappa and did not produce records relating to redemption of the mortgage, nevertheless accepted the testimony of PW1 without considering the sale deed Ex.D1 and accordingly answered issues in favour of the plaintiff to allow the suit by Judgment and decree. 4. The lower Appellate Court having regard to the material on record and on a re-appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary observed that Ex.D1 the registered sale deed dt. 15.11.1965 executed by Munishamappa, s/o Ramakka, in favour of Narasimhaiah, covenanting that the mortgage of the land by the executant in favour of one Nyathappa it was for the purchaser to have the mortgage redeemed by making payment to the said Nyathappa, while under Ex.D3, the extract of the mutation register certified that the revenue authorities acknowledged the acquisition of right, title and interest of the defendant in the suit property whereafter the revenue records were mutated in the name of the defendant. The RTC, phani for the year 2002-03 discloses the name of the plaintiff, pursuant to the Tahsildar's order, however the RTC, pahani for the year 2002-03 on the date of filing of the suit also reveals that, the revenue entries in the name of the defendant, which is not called in question by the plaintiff. According to the lower Appellate Court, the trial Court failed to assess the evidentiary value of Exs.D1, D3 and D4, and hence interfered with the Judgment and decree of the trial court, arid accordingly dismissed the suit by Judgment and decree impugned. According to the lower Appellate Court, the trial Court failed to assess the evidentiary value of Exs.D1, D3 and D4, and hence interfered with the Judgment and decree of the trial court, arid accordingly dismissed the suit by Judgment and decree impugned. Although teamed counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiffs testimony coupled with the revenue records produced by the plaintiff is substantial legal evidence of the fact in issue over the plaintiffs possession of the suit schedule property, I am afraid is unacceptable. As lightly pointed out by the lower Appellate Court, on a re-assessment of the material on record, the trial court failed to assess the evidentiary value of the contents of the sale deed Ex.D1 executed by the plaintiffs father Munishamappa in favour of defendant's father Narasimhaiah in the year 1965, relating to the mortgage of the suit schedule property to Nyathappa and vesting in the purchaser the right to redeem the mortgage, coupled with the fact that the Tahsildar accepted the defendant's acquisition of right, title and interest, following which the revenue entries were recorded disclosing the name of the defendant as on the date of filing the suit in the year 2002-03 which entry the plaintiff did not question, hence failed to establish lawful possession of the suit schedule property muchless interference by the defendant. No substantial question of law arises for decision making in this appeal. 5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. At this stage learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of the court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to institute a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. 7. Accepting the submission, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the appellant to institute a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property and in the event of doing so, it is needless to state that courts below need not be influenced by the observations made in this order and Judgments of the Courts below.