JUDGMENT : B.V. Nagarathna, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 2003 has preferred this second appeal, assailing the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 12 of 2007, dated 10-9-2009 by the Additional District Judge, Chikmagalur, by which, the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 58 of 2003, dated 6-2-2007 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadur, has been confirmed by decreeing the suit. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Trial Court. 3. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, representatives, agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property measures 60 feet x 40 feet (appropriately 75 feet x 40 feet), out of which, an extent measuring 15 feet was acquired on the western side for formation of a road bearing Municipal Asst. No. 3980 (old Survey No. 139/1-A-l measuring appropriately 2% guntas). The suit property is more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by B.K. Vasudevachar under registered sale deed dated 26-5-1959 from one Kenganna and he was put in possession of the said property on the same date. Thereafter, B.K. Vasudevachar got his name entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff has stated that he is the adopted son of B.K. Vasudevachar, retired Headmaster, Kadur. The suit property was a part of agricultural land in Survey No. 139 of Kadur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kadur Taluk, and the Tahsildar of Kadur had accepted the transfer and ordered to mutate his name in the revenue entries under mutation Register No. 123/86-87 on 28-1-1987. The suit property was not in a developed area and there were no houses in the vicinity. The name of B.K. Vasudevachar came to be entered in the R.T.C. extract by virtue of the mutation entries and the revenue was also fixed by the Tahsildar. He has also paid taxes to the Revenue Authorities. The suit property was not in a developed area and there were no houses in the vicinity. The name of B.K. Vasudevachar came to be entered in the R.T.C. extract by virtue of the mutation entries and the revenue was also fixed by the Tahsildar. He has also paid taxes to the Revenue Authorities. After the entry of the name of B.K. Vasudevachar in the revenue records and particularly in the khatha, an application was made to the Tahsildar, Kadur, Town Planning Authority, Chikmagalur and the erstwhile Administrator of Town Municipality, Kadur, to convert the revenue site into residential site in order to put up construction of a house thereon. The Revenue Inspector submitted a report and after spot inspection, conversion permission was granted on 6-7-1989. Thereafter, in the Register maintained by T.M.C., the name of plaintiff's father, B.K. Vasudevachar was entered as khatedar by giving Asst. No. 3980. 5. In the year 1973-74, the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, commenced acquisition proceedings for the purpose of formation of house sites and the suit schedule property was also notified. The acquisition notifications were published in the Gazette under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter, an award was passed in the name of B.K. Vasudevachar for payment of compensation. Title documents in respect of suit property were submitted and the award amount was also received by B.K. Vasudevachar towards compensation for acquisition of the suit property. However later, in the year 1986, the State Government decided to drop the acquisition insofar as Survey No. 139 was concerned. B.K. Vasudevachar was directed to remit back the compensation already received by him and he remitted back the amount on 11-8-1986 and the revenue site in Survey No. 139 was restored in the name of B.K. Vasudevachar as per the notice and endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer on 11-8-1986. At that stage, the title was scrutinised and possession was restored to him. Since then, B.K. Vasudevachar continued to be in possession of the site measuring 60 feet x 40 feet and on his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession as his adopted son. 6. In October 1989, after the acquisition proceedings were dropped, B.K. Vasudevachar took permission for conversion of revenue site into a municipal site. Since then, B.K. Vasudevachar continued to be in possession of the site measuring 60 feet x 40 feet and on his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession as his adopted son. 6. In October 1989, after the acquisition proceedings were dropped, B.K. Vasudevachar took permission for conversion of revenue site into a municipal site. At that time, M.C. Nanjunda Shastry, the husband of defendant, filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kadur, claiming to change the khatha in his name alleging that he had purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 13-1-1962 and it was represented that he had purchased the said site from Radha Rukminiyamma and his site is measuring 33 feet x 70 feet. B.K. Vasudevachar filed his objection to the said application on 3-10-1989 by submitting his documents in respect of suit schedule property and resisted the change of khatha. Thereafter, the Tahsildar issued an endorsement to the applicant, M.C. Nanjunda Shastry, stating that his application cannot been entertained as the father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and mutation entries and other formalities have been effected in his name. M.C. Nanjunda Shastry did not challenge the said order and he did not get change of khatha into his name. B.K. Vasudevachar made efforts for putting up construction in the suit schedule property. At that time, M.C. Nanjunda Shastry tried to meddle with the possession and enjoyment causing interference on 29-12-1989. Hence, B.K. Vasudevachar filed O.S. No. 15 of 1990 against M.C. Nanjunda Shastry before the Court of Munsiff, Kadur. During the pendency of the said suit, B.K. Vasudevachar died and the present plaintiff came on record and continued the suit. The said suit was not continued in view of the fact that M.C. Nanjunda Shastry also died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, his wife and children came on record as legal representatives. The earlier suit, namely, O.S. No. 15 of 1990 was not continued as it was bare injunction suit and on demise of M.C. Nanjunda Shastry that the suit was not maintainable against the legal representatives of sole defendant and hence, the suit was dismissed. 7. After the dismissal of the said suit, defendants tried to trespass over the suit property. On 23-5-2003, plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Police and he resisted the highhanded and illegal activities of the defendants. 7. After the dismissal of the said suit, defendants tried to trespass over the suit property. On 23-5-2003, plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Police and he resisted the highhanded and illegal activities of the defendants. It is contended that the defendants have no right, title and interest in the suit property. The plaintiff being the owner, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking aforesaid reliefs and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. 8. In response to the suit summons and Court notices, the defendants appeared and filed their written statements denying that the plaintiff was the adopted son of B.K. Vasudevachar and they have also denied that B.K Vasudevachar had purchased the suit schedule property from Kenganna on 26-5-1959, nor that he was put in possession of the same. Further, the defendants have submitted that there were not aware that the suit property was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural property and change of khatha in favour of B.K. Vasudevachar, or about the fixation of the revenue. The defendants stated that there were not aware of the acquisition proceedings, or that B.K. Vasudevachar had received compensation and later had remitted back the same and possession was restored to him. Defendants contended that their father M.C. Nanjunda Shastry had purchased a site in Survey No. 139/1-A-l measuring 70 feet East-West and 33 feet North-South from one Radha Rukminiyamma under registered sale deed dated 13-1-1962 and the said Radha Rukminiyamma had purchased the total extent of 70 feet x 72 feet from Kenganna under registered sale deed dated 13-4-1959. It is contended that the plaintiff also claimed to have purchased the suit property from Kenganna, but there was no property on the western side of the high school playground left to be sold after Kenganna had sold the property in favour of Radha Rukminiyamma. It was contended that the sale deed in favour of Radha Rukminiyamma would prevail over the alleged sale deed in favour of B.K. Vasudevachar. It was also stated that Radha Rukminiyamma had sold a portion of the property purchased by her in favour of one M.V Anantha Gupta, who has again sold the same to one Muralidhar under registered sale deed dated 24-11-1993 which also discloses that on the northern side of the said site, the property of M.C. Nanjunda Shastry was situated. It was also stated that Radha Rukminiyamma had sold a portion of the property purchased by her in favour of one M.V Anantha Gupta, who has again sold the same to one Muralidhar under registered sale deed dated 24-11-1993 which also discloses that on the northern side of the said site, the property of M.C. Nanjunda Shastry was situated. It was contended that plaintiff had no right, title, interest or possession over the property. The defendants' father M.C. Nanjunda Shastry and prior to him, his vendor Radha Rukmaniyamma had purchased the schedule property from Kenganna. Therefore, the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit property. Hence, they sought dismissal of the suit. 9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstructions and interference? 3. Whether the defendants prove that, their father M.C. Nanjunda Shastry was the owner in possession of the suit property ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaratory relief as prayed for? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 6. What decree or order? 10. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and another witness as P.W. 2. Plaintiff produced thirty-four documents, which were marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 34. While defendant No.4 examined himself as D.W. 1. He produced thirteen documents, which were marked as Exs. D. 1 to D. 13. On the basis of said evidence, the Trial Court answered Issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the affirmative and Issue No. 3 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned by him in the plaint and the defendants were restrained from interfering and obstructing in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants filed R.A. No. 12 of 2007 before the First Appellate Court, which on hearing the learned Counsel for respective parties, raised the following points for its consideration: "1. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants filed R.A. No. 12 of 2007 before the First Appellate Court, which on hearing the learned Counsel for respective parties, raised the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit holding that the plaintiff has proved his title and possession over the suit schedule property, and also alleged interference by the defendants? 2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court? 3. What order?" 12. It answered Point No. 1 in the affirmative, Point No. 2 in the negative and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 13. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts; below, the defendants have preferred this appeal. 14. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. He contended that both the plaintiff's predecessor and the defendants' predecessor had purchased properties which originally belonged to one Kenganna and that Kenganna had alienated an extent of land, i.e. 33 feet x 70 feet in favour of Radha Rukminiyamma on 13-4-1959. Thereafter, Kenganna had no saleable land and hence, he could not have alienated any extent of land in favour of B.K. Vasudevachar. Subsequently, M.C. Nanjunda Shastry, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, purchased the property from Radha Rukminiyamma on 13-1-1962. Therefore, Kenganna had no right, title and interest over the suit property. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate this fact and granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, he contended that substantial questions of law would arise in the appeal and it may be admitted for detailed hearing. 15. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the plaintiff is the adopted son of B.K. Vasudevachar, who had purchased the suit schedule property from Kenganna under registered sale deed on 26-5-1959. In order to establish this fact, apart from producing the certified copies of the sale deeds, he has also produced the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, for the purpose of formation of sites. In order to establish this fact, apart from producing the certified copies of the sale deeds, he has also produced the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, for the purpose of formation of sites. The State Government had awarded compensation to B.K. Vasudevachar and thereafter on acquisition proceedings being dropped, the compensation amount was remitted back to the State Government by B.K. Vasudevachar. Later, the suit property was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural property for the purpose of putting up the construction of a house thereon. At this stage, the husband of defendant and father of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, started meddling with the suit property and interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs property, Plaintiff's predecessor i.e. B.K. Vasudevachar had initially filed O.S. No. 15 of 1990 against M.C. Nanjunda Shastry and on his demise, the suit was dismissed and a fresh suit, i.e. O.S. No. 58 of 2003 was filed against the legal representatives of M.C. Nanjunda Shastry seeking the relief of the declaration as well as the permanent injunction. The fact that the suit schedule property was acquired from B.K. Vasudevachar by the State Government clearly shows that he was its khatedar and owner, and hence the payment of compensation was made to him. Thereafter, the State Government restored the possession to B.K. Vasudevachar on dropping of the acquisition proceedings which is an important factor which would establish the title and possession of the plaintiff insofar as the suit schedule property is concerned. 16. On the other hand, in the written statement, the defendants have contended that they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings nor that any compensation was awarded with regard to said acquisition and thereafter, the acquisition proceedings being dropped. They were not aware of the said facts simply because they were not the title holders and because M.C. Nanjunda Shastry was not the khathedar of the suit property, his name did not appear in the revenue records nor in the acquisition notifications in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, his name was rightly not included in the acquisition notification and he was not aware of the acquisition. Therefore, his name was rightly not included in the acquisition notification and he was not aware of the acquisition. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly placed reliance on the acquisition proceedings to come to a conclusion that the case of the plaintiff was substantiated by the fact that the suit schedule property was acquired from B.K. Vasudevachar for the purpose of formation of house sites by the State Government and on dropping of the said proceedings, the compensation amount was repaid by B.K. Vasudevachar and possession was restored to him by the State Government. The Trial Court has considered the evidence let in by the defendants at paragraphs 25 and 26. The Trial Court has considered the documentary evidence produced by D.W. 1 at paragraph 27. The Trial Court judgment as noted above is extracted for immediate reference in order to point out that D.W. 1, in the course of his evidence, has pleaded his ignorance in respect of details of the suit schedule property as well as his right, title and interest in the suit schedule property: "xxxxx 25. Now if we look to the evidence on the part of the defendants. The defendant No.4 has stepped into witness-box and he has reiterated the written statement averments contending that, the plaintiff is not at all the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination he says that, he does not know how much area was there to Radha Rukminiyamma and he also says that, he does not know that was the area that was belonging to kenganna and he also says that, he does not know the site number of Radha Rukminiyamma and also the boundaries of the sites held by her. He says that, he does not know whether Radha Rukminiyamma has got surveyed her property or not and whether the stones were got fixed or not. He admits that, there is no any map in respect of the boundaries fixed in respect of the property purchased by his father and it is also admitted that, in the sale deed under which his father has purchased the property from Radha Rukminiyamma, the property number is not mentioned and it is admitted that, it is only mentioned as a portion of Sy. No. 139. No. 139. He has also admitted that, even though his father has purchased the property in the year 1961-1962, but till 1986-87 no katha was effected in his father's name. He admits that, when the plaintiff's father came to construct in the property belonging to him, then his father filed an application. He has also admitted that, the plaintiff's father filled objections contending that, the possession of the property is with them and that it belongs to them. He has admitted that, in the sale deed of Radha Rukminiyamma the boundaries that are mentioned are correct. He says that, he does not know where is the land of P.M. Govindappa even though it is written in the sale deed that, to the north there is the property of Govindappa. He has also admitted that, there is no land of Mallithimmanna's son Govindappa. Even though it is mentioned in the sale deed of Radha Rukminiyamma that to the south there is the property of Mallithimmappana Govindappa's land. He further says that, he does not know if Varadaraja Modaliyar and Radha Rukminiyamma have purchased any other properties from Kenganna. He says that, the property which was purchased by his father is having the high school ground to the east, the property of Varadaraja Modaliyar to the west and he says that, he does not know when Varadaraja Modaliyar purchased his property. He is not in a position to say when the road i.e., to the west of the plaintiff's property, was formed and he says that, there is no property of the plaintiff. He says that, he does not know the measurements of the property of Varadaraja Modaliyar. He has admitted about the appointment of the Commissioner in Munsiff Court and about the submitting the report as per Ex. P. 30. He has admitted that, in Ex. P. 30 there is the property of Ramachandrappa to the north and property No. 12. He again says that, he does not know about it. He says that, he does not know where is the plaintiff's property and he also says that, he does not know about the acquisition proceedings during 1974. He also says that, he does not know if the Government had taken back the compensation amount and he also further says that, he does not know when the Government has given the property No. 139/1A/1 to his father. He also says that, he does not know if the Government had taken back the compensation amount and he also further says that, he does not know when the Government has given the property No. 139/1A/1 to his father. He has denied that, he has created Ex. D. 12. He says that, Exs. D. 4 to D. 11 might by the revenue receipts and he says that, his father has paid them and he says that, he has not produced them. He says that, he does not know when his father had given an application for conversion of his land for non-agricultural purpose. He has denied that, the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. 26. The defendant has not examined any other witnesses to showed that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. On the other had plaintiff has not only examined himself ancf also P.W. 2 but he has also produced the certified copies of the sale deeds and also the land revenue payment receipts and the application given to the municipality and to the Tahsildar and to the TMC and he has also produced the assessment extracts and the order passed regarding the granting permission for conversion of the property into non-agricultural purpose. 27. Now if we look to the documents produced by the defendants. The defendants have produced the sale deed copy at Ex. D. 1 under which his father purchased the property from Smt. Radha Rukminiyamma and the boundaries are mentioned. It is stated that, in an area of 70' East-West and 72' North-South out of it northern portion 70' East-West and 33' North-South has been purchased by the father of the defendants and the boundaries are to the east high school field, the land of Varadaraja Modaliyar to the west, remaining land retained by him to the south and by the land of M. Govindappa to the north. So, it is clear from this Ex. D. 1 that, Kenganna had retained some property to him before he sold the property to Radha Rukminiyamma and Radha Rukminiyamma in turn has sold the property to defendants's father Nanjunda Shastri. Ex. D. 2 is the certified copy of the sale deed, which goes to showed that, Radha Rukminiyamma had purchased the property from Kenganna. It also discloses that, Kenganna had retained some property to him before he sold the property to Radha Rukminiyamma. Ex. Ex. D. 2 is the certified copy of the sale deed, which goes to showed that, Radha Rukminiyamma had purchased the property from Kenganna. It also discloses that, Kenganna had retained some property to him before he sold the property to Radha Rukminiyamma. Ex. D. 3 is the certified copy of the sale deed showing that, Radha Rukminiyamma has sold the property to Ananthappa and Exs. D. 4 to D. 11 are the land revenue payment receipts and Ex. D. 12 is the record of rights of Sy. No. 139/1A/1AP. Ex. D. 13 is the mutation register extract which goes to showed that, Nanjunda Shastry has purchased the property from Radha Rukminiyamma and the property number is 139/P measuring 70' x 33'." 17. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court, therefore, decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court re-appreciating the points held that the documents produced by the plaintiff, namely, Ex. P. 34 proved that he was the adopted son of B.K. Vasudevachar and the said findings given by the Trial Court were not disturbed by the First Appellate Court. The registered sale deeds dated 26-5-1959 have been examined and i.e. Ex. P. 1 has been examined by the Trial Court. The evidence let in by the plaintiff and the defendants has been considered and the First Appellate Court has reasoned to say that there was no flaw in the judgment and decree in decreeing the suit. 18. The finding of facts given by the Courts below in my considered view are justified having regard to the evidence let in by the plaintiff to substantiate his case and total lack of evidence on the part of the defendants. I do not find any error in the judgments of the Courts below. No substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.