JUDGMENT : S.N. SATHYANARAYANA, J. 1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff in O.S. No. 307/1981 on the file of Principal II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing his suit. 2. The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under: 2.1 The original plaintiff filed the suit stating that his father, Lakshmaiah, acquired the land in Sy. No. 60/1 measuring 01 Acre 13 guntas situate at Konappana Agrahara, Begur hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, from one Thimmaiah. The said Lakshmaiah during his lifetime was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and after his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the same. However, the plaintiff filed the suit in respect of an extent of 5 guntas only in the aforesaid Sy. No. 60/1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant, who had no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit property, tried to put up construction in the suit property and hence, he was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. 2.2 Subsequently, the plaintiff got amended the plaint several times and got impleaded defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit alleging that defendant No. 2, without any manner of right, executed gift deed in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who have subsequently sold the same in favour of defendant No. 1. In addition to the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No. 1, he sought for declaration that the gift deed dated 10.05.1973 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and sale deed dated 19.12.1980 executed by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 are null and void and not binding on him and that he is the absolute owner of the suit property. 2.3 On service of suit summons, defendants entered appearance. Defendant No. 1, who is the purchaser of the suit property under registered sale deed dated 19.12.1980 executed by defendant No. 3 Smt. Chikkatayamma and defendant No. 4-Sri Neelappa, filed written statement inter alia contending that the measurement of land in Sy. No. 60/1 as stated in the plaint is incorrect and the same measures 01 Acre 16 guntas. The said land originally belonged to Sri. No. 60/1 as stated in the plaint is incorrect and the same measures 01 Acre 16 guntas. The said land originally belonged to Sri. Muniyappa, the great grandfather of the plaintiff. Muniyappa had only one son, by name Bala Reddy Pillaiah. He died leaving behind him surviving his four sons, namely (1) Rama Reddy, (2) Bala Reddy, (3) Lakshmaiah and (4) Hanumappa. During the lifetime of Bala Reddy Pillaiah, the family was joint and undivided. There was an oral partition in the family about 30 years next before filing of the written statement, which was later confirmed and reduced to writing under palupatti dated 17.02.1974. The said Rama Reddy and Hanumappa got separated themselves from the joint family by taking their respective share in the family properties. However, Bala Reddy and Lakshmaiah continued to live together in the joint family. Under the said palupatti, 1/3rd share out of Sy. No. 60/1 known as 'kanada holla' was allotted to the share of third son (it is actually, fourth son-Hanumappa) of Bala Reddy Pillaiah and the remaining 2/3rd share was allotted to the joint share of Bala Reddy and Lakshmaiah. Rama Reddy was not given any share in the land in Sy. No. 60/1. Bala Reddy died on 12.12.1972 leaving behind him his widow, Smt.Eramma (defendant No. 2) and his only daughter, Smt. Chikkatayamma (defendant No. 3). Lakshmaiah died two years next before filing of the written statement. Subsequent to the death of Bala Reddy, in the partition that took place between the successors of Bala Reddy and Lakshmaiah, 18 guntas was allotted to the share of defendant No. 2 and she gifted 9 guntas of land out of the same in favour of her daughter-Smt. Chikkathayamma and her daughter's son, Sri. Neelappa (defendant No. 4) under registered gift deed dated 10.05.1973. Defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and is in possession of the same. 2.4 Defendant No. 1 filed additional written statements to the effect that the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiff by way of amendment to the plaint were barred by limitation and plaintiff was not entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 2.5 Defendant No. 2 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate written statement taking similar defence as taken by defendant No. 1. 2.5 Defendant No. 2 and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed separate written statement taking similar defence as taken by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 in her written statement has asserted that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same from defendant Nos. 3 and 4, in whose favour, she had executed registered gift deed dated 10.05.1973. She further contended that plaintiff's father-Lakshmaiah himself was an attesting witness to the said gift deed. Accordingly, defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 contended that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief as sought by him. 2.6 During the pendency of suit, defendant No. 2 died leaving him surviving her daughter-defendant No. 3. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 also died leaving her surviving her son-defendant No. 4. 2.7 Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: '1. Whether plaintiff proves his lawful possession of suit schedule land ? 2. Whether the plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule land was tried to be interfered by the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction ? 4. To what reliefs are the parties entitled ?' The following additional issues were framed by the trial Court on 28.03.1988: '1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the second defendant had no right, to execute the gift deed dated 16.5.1975 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the same is not acted upon and also not binding on the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 19.12.1980 executed by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in favour of the first defendant is null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff?' Additional issues were framed by the trial Court on 24.09.1988 as under: '3. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient ? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of and mis joinder of necessary parties' On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and he also examined three witnesses, PWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of defendants, defendant No. 1 got examined himself as DW.1 and he also examined two witnesses DWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as per Exs.D1 to D8. On behalf of defendants, defendant No. 1 got examined himself as DW.1 and he also examined two witnesses DWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents as per Exs.D1 to D8. 2.8 The trial Court while considering additional issue No. 3, has observed that the plaintiff had not paid Court fee in respect of the reliefs of declaration and cancellation of gift deed sought by him and accordingly answered the same in the negative against the plaintiff. With reference to additional issue No. 4, the trial Court has held that since all the legal representatives of Lakshmaiah were not made parties to the suit, the same was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, by judgment dated 27.09.2002, has answered issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative against the plaintiff and issue No. 4 as per the final order dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with costs. It is seen that the date of gift deed is wrongly shown as 16.5. 1975 in additional issue No. 1 framed by the trial Court, but the correct date is 10.05. 1973. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the original plaintiff filed appeal, which was numbered as R.A. No. 251/2002 before the Fast Track Court-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2.9 The first appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides and considering the material available on record, framed the following point for consideration: 'Whether the learned trial Judge has erred in properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record in light of settled principles of law and that, whether the interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and decree is necessary' The first Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record and considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo, by judgment dated 12.08.2006, has held that the trial Court has dealt with all the aspects in the proper perspective and declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the original plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, the original plaintiff filed this second appeal. 3. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below, the original plaintiff filed this second appeal. 3. During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellant - Sri. Shamanna Reddy (plaintiff in the suit) died and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 12.02.2016. Subsequently, one of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff i.e., Sri. S. Gopala Reddy (appellant No. 2) and respondent No. 2-Sri. Neelappa (defendant No. 4 in the suit) died and their respective legal representatives are also brought on record as per the aforesaid order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2(a) and 2(b). Perused the records of both the Courts below. The case of the original plaintiff is that the suit property was acquired by his father, namely, Lakshmaiah alias Lakshmaiah Reddy, son of Bala Reddy Pillaiah, from one Thimmaiah under registered sale deed dated 18.05.1944, which is marked as Ex.P7 in the trial Court. However, the contention of defendants is that though the said property was acquired in the name of Lakshmaiah, it was not his absolute property, but it was joint family property. The trial Court has dealt with the said aspect of the matter while considering additional issue Nos. 1 and 2. Relying upon the admission of PW.1 in his cross-examination and documents, Exs.P1, P2 and P7, which are copy of extract of index of land, copy of extract of record of rights and certified copy of sale deed dated 18.05.1944 respectively, the trial Court has held that though property in Sy. No. 60/1 was purchased in the name of Lakshmaiah, the father of the plaintiff, who was junior member of the family, it is the joint family property of Lakshmaiah and his brothers. 5. The defence taken by defendants is that in the oral partition, which was later confirmed and reduced to writing under palupatti dated 17.02.1974, Hanumappa, the fourth son of Bala Reddy Pillaiah was allotted 1/3rd share in Sy. No. 60/1 while the remaining 2/3rd share fell to the joint share of Bala Reddy and Lakshmaiah. Rama Reddy was not allotted any share in Sy. No. 60/1. No. 60/1 while the remaining 2/3rd share fell to the joint share of Bala Reddy and Lakshmaiah. Rama Reddy was not allotted any share in Sy. No. 60/1. Subsequent to the death of Bala Reddy on 12.12.1972, Lakshmaiah, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 - Smt. Eramma, wife of Bala Reddy, divided the properties among themselves as per the said palupatti and accordingly, Lakshmaiah was allotted 18 guntas of land and defendant No. 2 was given 18 guntas of land in the same Sy. No. 60/1, out of which she gifted 9 guntas of land in favour of her daughter, Smt. Chikkatayamma (defendant No. 3) and her daughter's son, Sri. Neelappa (defendant No. 4) under registered gift deed dated 10.05.1973 vide Ex.D8. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have subsequently sold 5 guntas (suit property) out of the said 9 guntas in favour of defendant No. 1 under registered sale deed dated 19.12.1980 vide Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court considering the fact that Lakshmaiah had affixed his left thumb mark (LTM) to Ex.D8, certified copy of gift deed dated 10.05.1973 as also the averments made in the written statement filed in the suit in O.S. No. 263/1991, which was filed by Chikkat-ayamma (defendant No. 3) and Neelappa Reddy (defendant No. 4) against Smt. Papamma (mother of the plaintiff) and others vide Ex.D4, has held that defendants have proved that there was oral partition between the father of the plaintiff, Lakshmaiah Reddy and defendant No. 2 somewhere between the date of death of Bala Reddy i.e., 12.12.1972 and date of gift deed i.e., 10.05.1973. The trial Court has accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of defendants with regard to flow of title as from defendant No. 2 to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and from them to defendant No. 1 under various registered deeds of which, the importance being attached to gift deed dated 10.05.1973 vide Ex.D8 and sale deed dated 19.12.1980 vide Ex.D1, which is in favour of defendant No. 1. Hence, the trial Court has held that the said gift deed and sale deed are valid and binding on the plaintiff. 7. Hence, the trial Court has held that the said gift deed and sale deed are valid and binding on the plaintiff. 7. The Trial Court has referred to Exs.P2 to P4-copy of extract of record of rights for the period from 1975-79 to 1980-81 i.e., at the time of filing of the suit produced by the plaintiff, which disclose that the suit schedule property was standing in the name of defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Since the plaintiff did not produce any rebuttal evidence in that regard, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit as also alleged interference by defendants and hence, he was not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with cost. 8. On going through the material available on record, this Court find that the flow of title in respect of the suit property with reference to defendant No. 1 as appreciated by both the Courts below appears to be just and proper. In view of the fact that defendant No. 2-Smt. Eramma, who was predecessor-in-title of the suit property, has accepted the flow of title as stated in registered gift deed dated 10.05.1973 - Ex.D8 leading to property vesting with defendant No. 1-Kodandarama Reddy under registered sale deed dated 19.12.1980 and the same being established by defendants by adducing cogent, oral and documentary evidence, the reasoning assigned by the trial Court for rejection of reliefs of declaration and injunction sought by the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the first appellate Court, appears to be just and proper. The finding arrived at by both the Courts below on facts being unassailable, the grounds urged for admission of this appeal do not merit consideration inasmuch as they do not give any scope for framing any substantial question of law.