JUDGMENT : These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.84/2009 and R.A.No.57/2011 dated 01.12.2011 whereunder suit O.S.No.125/2007 filed by plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction which came to be dismissed had been affirmed and suit O.S.No.50/2005 filed by plaintiffs for perpetual injunction which came to be decreed also came to be affirmed. 2. Though matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and they are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.50/2005 which is the earlier suit. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2005 are defendants-1 and 2 in O.S.No.125/2007 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007 are defendants - 1 and 2 in O.S.No.50/2005. 4. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2005 claimed to be the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.No.33 situated at Katanayakanahally village, Molakalmuru Taluk sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ right and enjoyment of suit schedule property. 5. On service of suit summons, defendants appeared and contested the matter by filing detailed written statement and also raised a plea that defendants have acquired title to property bearing Sy.No.33/2 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.37 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas under sale deed dated 24.01.1992 which includes their right to enjoy usufructs of 5 tamarind trees and therefore plaintiffs have no absolute right over tamarind trees. The defendants in O.S.No.50/2005 as already noticed, had filed a suit in O.S.No.125/2007 for declaration and permanent injunction contending interalia that they had purchased 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.33 and 4 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.37 under sale deed dated 24.01.1992 referred to supra and as such, the defendants cannot claim exclusive right over the property belonging to plaintiffs. Both the suits were independently adjudicated by the same Court and for reasons best known, none of the parties appearing had made attempts to get both the suits clubbed inasmuch as, bone of contentions between both the parties related to 5 tamarind trees. Be that as it may. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: RE: O.S.NO.50/2005 “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Be that as it may. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: RE: O.S.NO.50/2005 “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to the relief as sought for? 4. What order or decree?” RE: O.S.NO.125/2007 “1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are the absolute owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendants are obstructing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the defendants proves that the suit is not at all maintainable? 4. Whether the defendants proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation? 5. Whether the defendants are entitle for compensatory cost? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the reliefs sought for? 7. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.17/1988 and also pendency of O.S.No.50/2005 on the file of this Court?” 6. Both the parties tendered oral as well as documentary evidence and on appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties, trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.50/2005 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.125/2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed two appeals namely, R.A.Nos.57/2011 and 84/2009 respectively assailing the same. The lower appellate Court after having securing records of the trial Court and after hearing the learned Advocates appearing for parties, affirmed the judgment and decrees passed by the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals. Hence these two second appeals have been filed by the defendants. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for defendants, after arguing the matter at length, has contended that when the recitals found in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 clearly indicates that defendants have also right in claiming half share over 5 tamarind trees found in Sy.No.33, which undisputedly also owned by defendants to the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas, trial Court could not have dismissed the defendants’ suit in O.S.No.125/2007 and decreed the suit in O.S.No.50/2005. Hence, he has contended that substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memorandum would arise for consideration for being formulated and answered in favour of appellants. 8. Hence, he has contended that substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memorandum would arise for consideration for being formulated and answered in favour of appellants. 8. Per contra, Sri Siddappa, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has supported the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and has contended that concurrent finding of facts should not be disturbed particularly when there is no substantial question of law involved in these appeals and findings recorded by Courts below are all question of facts. Hence, he prays for dismissal of both the appeals. 9. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that when recitals in the sale deed dated 18.12.1986 would clearly indicate that plaintiffs had acquired title to the property bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas. Trial Court has granted a decree for perpetual injunction since the defendants under the guise of sale deed dated 24.01.1992 were attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and there is no error whatsoever committed by the Courts below enabling this Court to formulate substantial questions of law. Even otherwise, he would submit that in the event of this Court were to come to conclusion that there is question of law involved as contended by defendants, same be answered in favour of the plaintiffs in view of the overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records secured from the Courts below, this Court is of the considered view that following substantial question of law would arise for consideration: “Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit O.S.No.50/2005 and dismissing suit O.S.No.125/2007 without considering the recitals found in the respective sale deeds dated 18.12.1986 and 24.01.1992 marked as Exs.P-32 and D-2 respectively.” 11. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2005 are claiming title to the property bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas including ½ share in borewell, Well, IP set and 5 tamarind trees by virtue of sale deed dated 18.12.1986. Likewise, defendants in O.S.No.50/2005 (who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007) are also claiming title to the property bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas along with Sy.No.37 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas by virtue of sale deed dated 24.01.1992. Likewise, defendants in O.S.No.50/2005 (who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007) are also claiming title to the property bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas along with Sy.No.37 measuring 4 acres 36 guntas by virtue of sale deed dated 24.01.1992. Both the sale deeds were produced by both the parties in both suits and in O.S.No.50/2005 they were marked as Ex.P-32 and Ex.D-2 respectively. Recitals in the said sale deeds have been noticed by the Courts below. A perusal of said recitals would clearly indicate that vendors of both plaintiffs as well as defendants have categorically stated existence of 5 tamarind trees in Sy.No.33. It is no doubt true that revenue records do not speak about existence of 5 tamarind trees. It is neither the case of plaintiffs nor defendants that there are no tamarind trees existing in Sy.No.33, but on the other hand, each of them are claiming exclusive right over these 5 tamarind trees. 12. At the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that recitals in both the sale deeds unequivocally indicate that there is existence of tamarind trees. Vendors of both the plaintiffs and defendants have clearly stated that not only the usufructs of 5 tamarind trees but also equal share in Well, borewell, IP Set as well as electricity to which both the plaintiffs and defendants would be entitled to. Hence, neither of them can be heard to contend that they have exclusive right over tamarind trees. In fact, perusal of the pleadings in O.S.No.50/2005 would clearly indicate that plaintiffs therein have claimed half share in the Well, borewell, IP Set including ½ share in tamarind trees. Undisputedly and rightly so, suit O.S.No.50/2005 has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs therein. However, suit in O.S.No.125/2007 which came to be adjudicated by the same Court did not find favour with it though recitals found in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 clearly indicate that purchasers therein i.e., defendant in O.S.No.50/2005 and plaintiff’s in O.S.No.125/2007 has half share over the usufructs of Tamarind trees. However, suit in O.S.No.125/2007 which came to be adjudicated by the same Court did not find favour with it though recitals found in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 clearly indicate that purchasers therein i.e., defendant in O.S.No.50/2005 and plaintiff’s in O.S.No.125/2007 has half share over the usufructs of Tamarind trees. Finding recorded by the trial Court would indicate that predecessor in title of the defendants had not stated anything with regard to tamarind trees and as such, trial Court had dismissed the suit O.S.No.125/2007 which is obviously erroneous and illegal inasmuch as, recitals in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 - Ex.D-2 there is a specific, clear and unambiguous recital about existence of 6 tamarind trees over which the purchaser therein – defendants-1 and 2 in O.S.No.50/2005 are entitled to half share. This recital in the sale deed – Ex.D-2 has been given a complete go-by by the trial Court or in other words, ignored and thereby resulting in non-appreciation of material evidence available on record. It would not be out of contest to state that recitals found in a registered document would prevail over any other statement contrary to the pleadings (vide Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1923). In fact, lower appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2009 while considering the challenge to the decree of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.125/2007 has observed as under: “14. Ex.P.1 xxx purchaser. Ex.D.1 it shows that the defendants-1 and 2 have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.33 from one Makanna measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. In the said sale deed there is a clearly recitals with regard to tamarind trees. Ex.P.1 xxx purchaser. Ex.D.1 it shows that the defendants-1 and 2 have purchased the property bearing Sy.No.33 from one Makanna measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. In the said sale deed there is a clearly recitals with regard to tamarind trees. As per Ex.D.1 tamarind trees are situated in the share of Gonchigara Obaiah and Thippeswamy, but in Ex.D.1 there is no specification with regard to tamarind trees are situated in which survey number.” Having said so, it has jumped to the conclusion that there is ambiguity with regard to existence of tamarind trees and in the words of the lower appellate Court, finding recorded by it reads as under: “The plaintiffs in this case specifically contended that there are tamarind trees are situated in the suit property and in Ex.P.1, Ex.D.1, Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.5 where exactly tamarind trees are situated is not mentioned.” Said finding recorded by the lower appellate Court to dismiss suit of the plaintiffs is erroneous inasmuch as, recital in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 - Ex.D-2 (marked in O.S.No.50/2005), clearly mentioned that there is existence of 6 tamarind trees in Sy.No.33 over which defendants 1 and 2 are having half share. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that findings recorded by the trial Court in O.S.No.125/2007 and affirmed in R.A.No.84/2009 to that extent requires to be modified since it is a finding recorded contrary to evidence available on record by answering the substantial question of law partly in favour of plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007. 14. At this juncture, it is sufficient to clarify that insofar as decree passed in O.S.No.50/2005 as confirmed in R.A.No.57/2011 is concerned, same is not disturbed and it would suffice if it is clarified that claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.50/2005 as indicated in the decree was only to the extent of half share insofar as tamarind trees, water, Well, borewell, IP set are concerned. 15. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) R.S.A.No.134/2012 is hereby allowed in part by answering substantial question of law partly in favour of plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007. 15. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) R.S.A.No.134/2012 is hereby allowed in part by answering substantial question of law partly in favour of plaintiffs in O.S.No.125/2007. (ii) Judgment and decree passed by the Court below in O.S.No.125/2007 as affirmed by the lower appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2009 is hereby set aside and it is hereby decreed to the effect that plaintiffs are the owners of the property as described in the sale deed dated 24.01.1992 – Ex.P-1 and are entitled to half share in the Tamarind trees situated in Sy.No.33. (iii) R.S.A.No135/2012 stands disposed of subject to the observations made herein above. (iv) Keeping in view the relationship between the parties, costs made easy.