JUDGMENT : 1. The first and fourth defendants in O.S.No.199/1993 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Channarayapatna have come up in this second appeal impugning the divergent finding rendered in R.A.No.22/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Channarayapatna. 2. Admittedly, the original suit is initially for the relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from interfering with alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property. Subsequently, the suit was amended to include the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. The suit schedule property is land bearing survey no. 127(new Sy No.186) of Doddamathigatta village, Dandiganahalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. The suit is filed on the basis that the plaintiff- D.S. Krishnappa is the absolute owner of the same having purchased it under registered sale deed dated 29.01.1992 from one S.M. Ramachandra. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was granted in favour of his predecessor in title S.M. Ramachandra in or around 1965 and subsequently the same is sold in his favour under the registered sale deed stated above. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendants who have no manner of right, title and interest with reference to the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 4. In the said suit, defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance through counsel and filed their written statement, at the first instance for the plaint which was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, additional written statements were filed on two occasions i.e., on 13.12.2000 and 13.02.2002, which are subsequent to amending the plaint for the relief of declaration. The sum and substance of the defence is that, the suit schedule property is not the property which is granted in favour of S.M. Ramachandra. He was never the owner of suit schedule land. Subsequently, additional written statements were filed on two occasions i.e., on 13.12.2000 and 13.02.2002, which are subsequent to amending the plaint for the relief of declaration. The sum and substance of the defence is that, the suit schedule property is not the property which is granted in favour of S.M. Ramachandra. He was never the owner of suit schedule land. The darkasth sketch which is relied upon in support of the plaint do not tally with the boundaries given in the schedule and the schedule as shown in the plaint and that of suit document sale deed and darkasth sketch are with reference to different boundaries and the claim of plaintiff that the suit schedule property was sold in his favour by S.M. Ramachandra and he was put in possession of the same is factually incorrect. In the said written statement, it was also stated that the defendants are grantees in respect of suit schedule land, which is granted in their favour. Initially, the written statement did not furnish full details regarding the grant which was made in their favour when it was filed on 01.10.1993. However, in the additional written statements filed by them, they have indicated that the defendants 1 to 3 and one Manjamma were granted three acres of land vide order No.238/76-77 and L.N.D.SR-42/76-77 in Sy. No.127 of Doddamathigatta and it is stated that the land which was granted in favour of Manjamma was sold by her in favour of Thimmegowda, son of fourth defendant and therefore, in the aforesaid manner, the defendants have become the owners of the aforesaid lands, which are granted to them and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same pursuant to the grant and the revenue records are also entered in their name. 5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit land belonged to one S.M. Ramchandra? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that S.M. Ramachandra sold the suit property to him? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment over the suit property? 4. Whether the defendant proves the grant of suit scheduled properties in favour of them? 5. To what order or decree? Additional issues: 1. Whether the defendant proves sale deed dated 29.1.1992 is a forged document as averred in para 2 of additional written statement? 2. 3. Whether the plaintiff proves his possession and enjoyment over the suit property? 4. Whether the defendant proves the grant of suit scheduled properties in favour of them? 5. To what order or decree? Additional issues: 1. Whether the defendant proves sale deed dated 29.1.1992 is a forged document as averred in para 2 of additional written statement? 2. Do the defendants prove that they are the owner of land measuring 3.00 acres granted to them and in possession of the same as on the date of suit?” 6. In the proceedings before the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff, Krishnappa examined himself as P.W.1 and he also examined one Kayi Mayanna Gowda as P.W.2 and his predecessor in title S.M.Ramachandra as P.W.3 and another Y.N.Ananthapadmanabhaiah as P.W.4 and he relied upon 11 documents, which were produced and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Out of that, Exs.P1 to P4 are the copies R.T.C. extracts, Ex.P.5 is the rough sketch issued by Revenue Department; Ex.P.6 is the sale deed dated 29.01.1992 under which plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property; Exs.P7 and P8 are revenue receipts; Ex.P9 is the confirmation of change of ownership of the property in the revenue records; Ex.P10 is the copy of the register said to have been maintained in the office of Tahsildar to show the grant of suit property in favour of plaintiff’s vendor; Ex.P11 is again the R.T.C extract and Ex.P12 is another sketch issued by the revenue department on 09.06.1969. 7. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant Maqbul Ahmed examined himself as D.W.1 and he also examined five other persons viz., Abdul Ahmed as D.W.2, third defendant – Hanumanthegowda as D.W.3, Byraiah as D.W.4, Srikantaiah as D.W.5 and Puttashetty as D.W.6. In support of their defence in all 28 documents were produced. Out of that, Exs.D1, D18 and D24 are grant certificates and Ex.D2 is the T.T. receipt; Exs.D3 to D6 are the tax paid receipts; Exs.D7 and D8 are the endorsements issued by the Tahasildar with reference to the grant; Ex.D9 to D14 are the R.T.C. extracts; Ex.D15 is the document which supports the loan raised by the defendants on the security of property granted in their favour; Ex.D16 is the patta book; Ex.D17 is the survey sketch and similar documents from Exs.D19 to D23 and Exs.D25 to D28 are with reference to other two grants. 8. 8. The trial Court, on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to answer the issues framed in the Court below in the following manner: The first Issue with reference to plaintiff establishing the suit land belonged to his predecessor in title S.M. Ramachandra, was answered in the negative. The second issue whether the suit land is sold to the plaintiff by S.M. Ramachandra was answered in the negative. The third issue regarding plaintiff establishing his possession and enjoyment over the suit property was also answered in the negative and the fourth issue with reference to defendants establishing grant of suit schedule property in their favour was answered in the affirmative. Consequently, by answering issue No.5, the suit was dismissed. While doing so, the two additional issues which were framed, whether defendant proves that sale deed dated 29.01.1992 is a forged document as stated in Para-2 of the additional written statement was answered in the affirmative. Similarly, the second issue which is again based on the defence in the written statement to the effect that whether defendants prove that they are owners of land measuring three acres granted to them and they are in possession of the same as on the date of suit is also answered in the affirmative. 9. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.22/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Channarayapatna, wherein the lower appellate Court on re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, in the light of findings given in the Court below on issues 1 to 5 as well as on additional issues 1 to 2 and also considering the grounds urged before the lower Court, proceeded to frame three points for consideration as under: “1. Whether the learned trial Court Judge is not justified in holding that plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the learned Trial Judge went wrong in holding that defendants have proved that the suit schedule property was granted to them? 3. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court calls for an interference? 4. What order?” 10. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing the counsel for both the parties proceeded to answer all the three points in the affirmative. 3. Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court calls for an interference? 4. What order?” 10. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing the counsel for both the parties proceeded to answer all the three points in the affirmative. Consequently, the finding given by the trial Court on all the issues was set aside by answering the points for consideration as above and suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. The defendants 1 and 4 being aggrieved by the same have come in this second appeal. 11. When this matter was taken up for consideration on 13.03.2007 this appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: “Whether the lower appellate court was justified in declaring the title of the plaintiff on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1992 when the plaintiff failed to show the title of his vendor?” Thereafter, paper books are filed. The lower Court records were received and the matter was heard at length in the presence of Sri. Venkatesh R Bhagath, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1- plaintiff in the original suit. 12. On re-appreciation of the judgments of both the Courts below, in the light of pleadings and documents available on record and also grounds urged in the appeal, this Court would answer the substantial question of law in the Negative against the plaintiff-1st respondent in these proceedings for the following reasons. 13. Before discussing the reason for answering the aforesaid substantial question of law, it is essential to discuss about the parties to the suit. The pleading and evidence on records would disclose that the plaintiff in the original suit viz., D.S.Krishnappa who examined himself as PW-1 in the said suit is stamp vendor and document writer by profession. Besides he was also into other activities, as it is stated that he was also Director of Industrial Co-Operative Society Channarayapatna. The suit filed by him was for the relief of Permanent Injunction seeking to restrain defendants from interfering with his alleged possession and cultivation of suit schedule land. Later he amended the said suit in seeking the relief of Declaration that he is absolute owner in possession and cultivation of 4 Acres in Sy.No.127 (new No.186) of Doddamathigatta Village, Dandiganahalli hobli of Channarayapatna Taluk. Later he amended the said suit in seeking the relief of Declaration that he is absolute owner in possession and cultivation of 4 Acres in Sy.No.127 (new No.186) of Doddamathigatta Village, Dandiganahalli hobli of Channarayapatna Taluk. The basis for such relief is sale deed dated 29.1.1992 executed by one S.M.Ramachandra who is examined as PW-3 in the court below. 14. Though in the proceedings before trial court it was pleaded that plaintiff’s predecessor in title PW-3 was granted suit schedule land in regularising his alleged unauthorised cultivation of the same, the grant certificate is not produced. In fact neither in the plaint nor in the evidence there is reference to the date of grant of suit land in favour of PW3. The alleged title of PW-3 is tried to be established based on RTC and other related revenue documents. In fact in the sale deed dated 29.1.1992 which is at Ex.P6 the grant is stated to be about 30 years prior to that date. There is no reference to specific date, month or year of Grant in favour of PW-3. In fact there is no reference to PW-3 being an agriculturist at any point of time. 15. The records disclose that P.W.3 was resident of Singapur village of Alur taluk in Hassan District. It is stated he got migrated to Channarayapatna in the year 1964 to work as Secretary in the Industrial Co-operative Society. The records also discloses that, plaintiff herein was the director of the said Society and their viz, PW.3 and plaintiff’s association would commence from then onwards. The fact of PW-3 coming to Channarayapatna in the year 1964 carries significance as that is the year it is stated when he applied seeking regularisation of his alleged unauthorised cultivation of suit land. In fact the RTC’s produced and relied upon by the plaintiff which are at Ex.P-1 to P4 are for the year 1975-76 to 1992-93. The RTC at Ex.P3 which is for the period 1975-76 onwards does not disclose the basis on which his name was entered in column No.9, which discloses the name of the holder, column No.10 deals with the nature of possession and title, Column No.11 deals with encumbrance. Except column No.9 disclosing the name of PW-3 as person who is holder of suit land, all other columns are blank, they do not disclose the basis on which his name is entered. Except column No.9 disclosing the name of PW-3 as person who is holder of suit land, all other columns are blank, they do not disclose the basis on which his name is entered. However, in Ex-P2 which is for the period 1982-83 in column No.10 it is stated ‘Dharkhast’ without furnishing the particulas of the proceedings in which the said order is made. In Ex-P1 which is for the period 1986-87 to 89-90 there is improvement in showing MR No.6/91-92 which is on the basis of sale deed by PW-3 to PW-1 plaintiff dated 29.01.1992 vide Ex-P6 in Column No.10 of RTC, in the same column there is reference to ASLR No.11/69-70 which is with reference to survey of said land in 1969-70, does not refer to transaction in granting the suit land to PW-3 who is plaintiffs predecessor in title. In addition to that, there is also an attempt to establish their ownership over the suit land on the basis of rough sketch said to have been issued from the survey department. Surprisingly the said survey sketch which is at Ex-P5 dated 5.6.1964 would disclose that it is rough sketch and it is prepared at the instance of S.M.Ramachandra PW-3 and another H.R.Chandrashekar at their request identifying the place of their choice. In the said sketch the place identified by them are referred as Block No. I and II. The said sketch also bear their signature, which appears to be strange, in that, even before the land is granted it is identified by survey on their request as per their choice of place. 16. However, the next survey sketch which is in proceedings No. ASLRPH No.87-3/65-6 is dated 9.6.1969 which is at Ex-P12 refers to Block No. I & II in Sy.No.127 of Mathigatta village, in a different dimension than the manner in which it is seen in Ex-P5 draft survey sketch. Incidentally in Ex-P12 there is no reference to the name of PW-3 S.M.Ramachandra and Somashekar as seen in Ex- P5, but the said document discloses that said Block No.I & II of Sy.No.127 of Mathigatta is assigned Sy.Nos.185 & 186. This clearly discloses that Ex-P5 is concocted or forged document to show as if Ex-P5 is Draft which is later finalised as Ex-P12 to demonstrate that, PW-3 and Somashekar are grantees of New Sy.Nos.185 & 186 without producing the original grant. 17. This clearly discloses that Ex-P5 is concocted or forged document to show as if Ex-P5 is Draft which is later finalised as Ex-P12 to demonstrate that, PW-3 and Somashekar are grantees of New Sy.Nos.185 & 186 without producing the original grant. 17. In fact, in the cross examination of PW-3 he would state that, the grant of suit land in his name was in the year 1965 without referring to exact date and would further state that, he lost the original grant certificate after 1970. However he admits thereafter that he neither lodged a complaint for loss of the document, nor applied for certified copy of the same from the competent authority. He admits he never applied to get his name entered in the RTC of said survey number. 18. The attempt on the part of Plaintiff PW-1 and his alleged predecessor in title PW-3 to demonstrate that, the suit land was granted in favour of PW-3 in 1965 and later he sold the said land to plaintiff is an exercise in futility. It is clearly seen on the basis of concocted and forged Ex- P5 and upon stray entries in Ex-P1 to 4 and other revenue documents they attempted to establish the alleged grant in favour of PW-3. It is clearly seen that the plaintiff admittedly a document writer and stamp vendor along with his associate PW-3 has managed to create false, forged documents to set up a false claim to suit schedule land which is claimed as land granted in favour of Defendants who are landless labourers. In fact creation of document could be traced to the sale deed under which plaintiff is trying to trace his title, where it is indicated that, to the west of suit land the land of one H.R.Chandrashekar is situated. However at the time of filing of the suit in the plaint while describing the same land, on its western side its boundary is shown as the Government Land in unauthorised cultivation of 1st Defendant and land of Chandrashekar. Subsequently in the court below by filing I.A.No.8, an order is secured on 20.9.2000 seeking to delete the name of Chandrashekar, thereby clearly admitting that, the suit schedule land and the land shown with the boundary in the sale deed at Ex- P6 are not one and the same. Subsequently in the court below by filing I.A.No.8, an order is secured on 20.9.2000 seeking to delete the name of Chandrashekar, thereby clearly admitting that, the suit schedule land and the land shown with the boundary in the sale deed at Ex- P6 are not one and the same. This is nothing but criminal act by P.Ws.1 and 3 to set claim for the land of Defendants as if it is the land granted in favour of PW-3 and later conveyed to Plaintiff. This clearly disclose that the greed would always give up the perpetrator who commit crime through the mistakes committed by him. Similar is the situation in this transaction also. The boundaries to the land said to have been conveyed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.P6 is not what is shown under schedule to the plaint. Though in the initial stage in addition to showing the name of first defendant as the owner of the land on the western boundary of the suit schedule property, subsequently, as stated supra, by filing application in I.A.No.8, the situation of the western boundary was worsened by deleting the original boundary as seen in the sale deed. Be that as it may. 19. When the trial Court judgment is seen, the learned Judge of trial Court has applied his mind and put his heart in trying to read and appreciate every single document which are produced on behalf of both plaintiff and defendant. In fact, in the proceedings before the trial court, the defendants have not only set up their defence in denying the alleged title of plaintiff but they have also demonstrated their unauthorised cultivation in land bearing Sy.No.127, which was subsequently granted in their favour in regularising their unauthorised cultivation by issuing grant certificate in their favour. Based on that, the revenue entries in RTC and other documents are also changed in their name, their holding, possession, cultivation and enjoyment is established by them both by relying on documentary evidence and also oral evidence through independent witnesses of the same village. 20. However, it is the lower appellate court which has committed serious error in re-appreciating the pleading and evidence, consequently reversing the finding of the trial court, which cannot be sustained. 20. However, it is the lower appellate court which has committed serious error in re-appreciating the pleading and evidence, consequently reversing the finding of the trial court, which cannot be sustained. In fact, when the judgment in the lower appellate Court is seen, the dishonesty of the Judge of the lower appellate Court in re-appreciating the pleading and evidence is clearly seen. While discussing point Nos. 1 to 3 in one sentence he would say the defendants have failed to establish which portion of land in Sy.No.127 was granted in their favour and in the very same sentence his dishonesty is seen in giving the particulars of the block number referred to by the defendants in the written statement. Though he has seen the judgment of the lower Court as well as the documents which are produced along with the evidence thread bear, there is an attempt on his part to somehow establish the title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. When the documents produced by the plaintiff itself reveal that the documents relied upon are concocted and forged and there is no such grant in favour of P.W.3, he would deliberately ignore the same, while doing so he believes the false documents produced and relied upon by the plaintiff. 21. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that a grave mistake is committed by the lower appellate Court in deliberately ignoring the factual finding of the trial Court while discussing the pleadings and evidence and tried to twist and project the said false documents as genuine documents to confirm title on the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, which is nothing but a deliberate farce attempt to support the unrighteous claim of plaintiff over suit schedule property, which actually belong to the defendants. 22. With this observation, this Court would allow this second appeal filed by defendants 1 and 4 by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2006 passed in R.A.No.22/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Channarayapatna. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2002 passed in O.S.No.199/1993 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Channarayapatna is hereby confirmed.