JUDGMENT : This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and it was confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 2. I have heard Sri.Vasudev Iyengar K.T., learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants (defendants) submits that the Courts below have committed an error in relying upon Hakku Patra, Ex.P.1 which is created and holding that plaintiff has proved his case that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the admission made by the plaintiff that suit property is in possession of the appellants (Defendants). 5. He submits that the Courts below having come to the conclusion that the appellants (Defendants) and the wife of the first appellant are in the possession of the suit property and respondent (plaintiff) has nothing to do with the suit schedule property have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel submits that respondent (plaintiff) though is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property has filed a false suit with an intention to harass the appellants/defendants, thereby contends that there are substantial question of law arise for consideration and therefore he prays for admitting the appeal for consideration of those substantial questions of law. 7. The case of the plaintiff is that, a vacant site bearing Sl.No.122 property No.10 measuring East to West – 40 feet, North to South – 30 feet situated at Minasandra village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk bounded East by Site No.9, West by Gramatana, North by Gramatana (defendants house) and South by Road, herein after referred to as suit schedule site was granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff on 19.11.1991 under Ashraya scheme. Accordingly the BDO, Malur and the Tahsildar, Malur taluk have issued Hakku patra to the plaintiff. Since then, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Grama Panchayat of Jayamangala has issued Demand Registry Extract to the plaintiff in the year 1995-1996 and plaintiff has been paying taxes to the Panchayat on the suit schedule property. Accordingly the BDO, Malur and the Tahsildar, Malur taluk have issued Hakku patra to the plaintiff. Since then, plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The Grama Panchayat of Jayamangala has issued Demand Registry Extract to the plaintiff in the year 1995-1996 and plaintiff has been paying taxes to the Panchayat on the suit schedule property. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendants being strangers to the suit property and having no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property on 30.09.2008 illegally obstructed the possession of the plaintiff and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff has instituted this suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 8. First defendant has filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff interalia contending that on 20.01.1986, the mother of first defendant and grand mother of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by name Seetha Lakshmamma purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed through GPA holder and ever since the date of purchase, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She has planted seven coconut trees, one jack fruit tree and Huvarasi tree in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any point of time. Plaintiff has created documents and on the basis of the created documents, plaintiff has filed this suit. It is further case of the defendants that junjar No.7 and property No.9 measuring east-west – 30 feet and north-south – 100 feet bounded east by Srinivasachars house, west by property of first defendant namely Savithramma, north and south by Government road. Plaintiff has suppressed the real fact involved in the case, with the above contentions defendants prayed for dismissal of suit. 9. The Trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the parties, has framed following issues for its consideration: (1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property as on the date of the suit? (2) Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to the plaint reliefs? (4) What decree or order? 10. (2) Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to the plaint reliefs? (4) What decree or order? 10. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and two more witnesses as PW2 and 3 and has produced 7 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant – Ranganath was examined as DW1 and they examined one Shivakumar as DW2 and have produced 10 documents which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.10. 11. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Affirmative and decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. 12. Defendants aggrieved by the said judgment and decree by the Trial Court challenged the same by preferring a Regular Appeal in RA No.37/2012 before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Malur which was also dismissed. By challenging these concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 13. According to the plaintiff, a site bearing serial No.122, property No.10 measuring east-west – 40 feet and north-south – 30 feet situated at Minasandra village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar, district bounded on East by Site No.9, West by Gramatana, North by Gramatana (Defendants House) and South by Road was granted by the Government in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has produced the Hakku patra dated 19.11.1991 issued by the Block Development Officer and Tahsildar of Malur taluk and it was marked as Ex.P.1. The description of the suit schedule property tallies with that of description mentioned in the Hakku patra – Ex.P.1. As per the Hakku patra, the name of the plaintiff also appeared in the Assessment Registry Extract relating to the suit property as evident from Ex.P.4 and P.6. Plaintiff has been paying tax to the Panchayat on the suit schedule property. The plaintiff examined as PW1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examinationinchief. Nothing worth was elicited from his cross examination. On the other hand, it was suggested by the defendants to PW1 during his cross examination that on the northern side of the suit schedule property, the house of the first defendant is situated. The plaintiff examined as PW1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his examinationinchief. Nothing worth was elicited from his cross examination. On the other hand, it was suggested by the defendants to PW1 during his cross examination that on the northern side of the suit schedule property, the house of the first defendant is situated. In fact, it is the case of the plaintiff that on the northern side of the suit property, there is house belonging to the Ranganath who is none other than first defendant. PW1 admits that after the death of Ramaswamy, his son Srinivasa was in possession of the northern side of the suit property. It is also the suggestion of the defendants during the cross examination of PW1 that on the northern side of the suit property, compound is put up equivalent to the measurement of the house. PW1 has denied the suggestion of the defendants that suit schedule property has included the property of the defendants and PW2 and 3 have supported the case of the plaintiff, nothing worth is elicited by the defendants from cross examination of PW2. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant was examined as DW1, he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement of the defendants. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he does not know what purpose the plaintiff has filed this suit and he does not know relating to which property plaintiff has filed this suit and though he has contended in the written statement that the suit has been filed in respect of Gramatana property bearing No.9. He has clearly admitted that he has nothing to do with the property bearing No.10, serial No.122 which is the suit schedule property. He has deposed that he does not know whether suit property has been granted by the Government in favor of the plaintiff during the year 1991. He has deposed that he does not know whether Demand Registry Extract relating to the suit property is standing in the name of the plaintiff since 1986. He admits that his property is situated towards the north of the suit property. He admits that all the documents produced by the defendants are in respect of the property bearing No.9, whereas suit property bears property No.10, serial No.122. He admits that his property is situated towards the north of the suit property. He admits that all the documents produced by the defendants are in respect of the property bearing No.9, whereas suit property bears property No.10, serial No.122. Further defendants have contended that their property measures East-West – 30 feet, North-South-100 feet, whereas suit property measures East-West – 40 feet, North-South – 30 feet, this is corroborated by the admission of DW1 that he has nothing to do with the suit property. The Trial Court considering the above material aspect of the matter was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court on reappreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 14. I have carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and do not see any illegality or infirmity warranting my interference. That apart, there is absolutely no substantial question of law which arises for consideration. 15. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.1/2015 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stay application is rejected. No order as to costs. Hence, appeal is dismissed.