JUDGMENT : This second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1114/1994 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Mysore. Respondents in this appeal filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the property measuring East-West 200 feet and North-South 160 feet bearing old Corporation No.674/1 (Present No.2/1) of Lokaranjan Mahal Road, Nazarbad, Mysore and plaintiffs claimed to be the lawful owners of the said property, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1971, executed by Maharajakumari Meenakshi Deviyavaru Trust, Mysore. Seeing interference by the defendants over the suit schedule property, they filed a suit for permanent injunction. 2. The defendants contended in the written statement that the entire property which is known by name Vasantha Mahal was acquired by the Government and therefore, the suit schedule property was within the acquired area. 3. During the trial before the Court of first instance, the plaintiff produced a document marked as Ex.P.18, which is an endorsement issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department. In the said document, it has been clearly stated that the property measuring 200 x 160 feet purchased by the plaintiff was not the subject matter of the acquisition. The defendants did not lead evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court placing reliance on Ex.P.18 and also for the reason that the defendants did not adduce evidence, decreed the suit. 5. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal to the District Court, Mysore by filing R.A.No.663/2010 (Old No.392/2008). Learned VI Additional District Judge, Mysore, also re-appreciated the evidence once again. Learned District Judge made a specific reference to summoning of documents by the trial Court for the purpose of ascertaining which property was actually the subject matter of acquisition by the defendants. He also concurred with the findings of the trial Court that the suit schedule property was not at all acquired and therefore, dismissed the appeal. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant contends that the suit schedule property was the subject matter of acquisition. The Government Training Institute is housed in the part of the property; therefore, there is dispute with regard to identity of suit schedule property. Both the Courts also could not have decreed the suit. According to her, substantial question of law arises for admitting this appeal. 7. The Government Training Institute is housed in the part of the property; therefore, there is dispute with regard to identity of suit schedule property. Both the Courts also could not have decreed the suit. According to her, substantial question of law arises for admitting this appeal. 7. After perusing the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, I am of the opinion that both the Courts have held consistently that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs and it was not the subject matter of acquisition. It is no doubt true that the adjacent property was acquired by the government. Under the garb of acquisition, it appears that the defendants might have interfered with the plaintiffs possession and therefore, the suit came to be decreed. 8. When Ex.P.18 makes it clear that the suit schedule property purchased by the plaintiff, had not been acquired, it cannot be said that the interest of the defendants is affected. If at all the plaintiffs had obtained decree, the same operates in respect of the property purchased by them only, and nothing more. do not find that a substantial question arises to admit the appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. IA No.2/2012 does not survive for consideration, in view of dismissal of the appeal.