JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by defendant under section 100 CPC is directed against the reversing judgment of the first appellate Court dated 8.2.2012 in Civil Appeal No.46A/2011 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 11.10.2011 in Civil Suit No.36A/2011. Plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. With the consent of the parties, appeal is heard finally. Following question of law has been answered in affirmative and in favour of plaintiffs decreeing the suit :- “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the first appellate Court was justified reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court; granting decree of declaration of title and possession in respect of land falling in survey nos.142/2(Ka), 142/2(Kha) and 142/2(ga) admeasuring 0.240 hectare and permanent injunction against the defendant?” 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that in respect of the land admeasuring 0.240 hectare falling in survey Nos.142/2(Ka), 142/2(Kha) and 142/2(ga) in village Khajuriya, Tahsil Ashoknagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is averred that plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 are real brothers and plaintiff No.4 is the son of plaintiff No.3. The suit land is of their joint possession and they are doing cultivation harvesting crops thereupon. Vide registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 the suit land was purchased from Haricharan, Bhura, Narayan, Gayabai and Sakunbai. Accordingly, title of the suit land was transferred and names were mutated in revenue records. As defendant-Durga tried to excavate an area of 15×5 in the corner of the suit land with an intention to raise construction thereupon as indicated in the suit map and marked as A, B, C, D with red ink, the instant suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is submitted that land falling in survey Nos.142/1 and 142/2 were originally survey No.142 admeasuring 0.105 hectare. The original holders of land have transferred the same to the brother of plaintiff-Devilal by a sale deed, however, certain part thereof was sold to defendant No.1. As such, the aforesaid area in survey No.142 is of the ownership of defendant No.1 and he is in possession thereof vide survey No.142/2. The original holders of land have transferred the same to the brother of plaintiff-Devilal by a sale deed, however, certain part thereof was sold to defendant No.1. As such, the aforesaid area in survey No.142 is of the ownership of defendant No.1 and he is in possession thereof vide survey No.142/2. It is asserted that if plaintiffs have purchased the said part of the land from defendant, the same is null and void. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues, allowed the parties to lead evidence and on appreciation of evidence dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court has re-considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. It has been found that the suit land was purchased by plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002, accordingly their names were mutated in the revenue record. Plaintiffs have proved the documentary evidence viz. Khasra Panchshala from 2008-09, Ex.P/1, P/2 and P/3, registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002 Ex.P/4 and Bhu-Adhikar Awam Rin Pustika Ex.P/5, whereas the defendant, who asserted to have title over the suit land allegedly purchased from the vendors of the plaintiffs named in preceding paragraphs, have not filed any documentary evidence much less registered sale deed or sale deed in their favour. Defendant has not denied the factum of execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs by the original owners. There is no registered sale deed in favour of defendant. There is no revenue record in his favour in respect of the suit land to demonstrate that he is in possession of the suit land. So much so even in para 12 of his cross examination he expressed his ignorance as to whom the suit land belonged. As a matter of fact the defendant tried to resist the suit on the plea that the suit land was purchased by his brother Devilal from the original owners and on that strength he tried to justify his possession, which did not find favour with the first appellate Court. The documentary evidence brought on record vide Ex.D/1 to D/5 do not relate to the defendant. The documentary evidence brought on record vide Ex.D/1 to D/5 do not relate to the defendant. On appreciation of aforesaid evidence led by plaintiffs and defendant the first appellate Court has found that in the light of the fact that title of the suit land was transferred in the name of plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 21.8.2002, based whereupon revenue records were also corrected. Plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land doing cultivation and harvesting crops thereupon. In the teeth of these conclusive evidence and in absence of evidence either denying the sale deed Ex.P/4 in favour of plaintiffs or asserting right, title and possession over the suit land by any registered instrument and revenue record in favour of defendant the trial Court was found to have fallen in error while dismissing the suit. Accordingly, the first appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has failed to point out any documentary evidence much less sale deed or revenue record in favour of defendant to sustain his right, title and interest over the suit land or to dislodge the findings recorded by the first appellate Court. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the first appellate Court was justified having decreed the suit of plaintiffs for title and possession of the suit land. As defendant resisted the suit, the first appellate Court was justified having injuncted defendants not to interfere with the suit land of the ownership and possession of plaintiffs. Hence, the question of law is answered in affirmative and in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. The second appeal is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.