JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful defendant filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated: 03042008 made in R.A.No.20/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Lingusugur confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court dated: 03042008 made in O.S.No.95/2004 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) Lingasugur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of suit house bearing No.114 measuring EastWest 30 feet, North South 25 feet situated at Lingasugur more fully described in the plaint and directed the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the suit house bearing Reg. No.114 to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of Judgment. 2. The respondent who is the plaintiff before the trial court filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the house property more fully described in the plaint contending that, he is the owner of the suit house and the defendant is no way concerned to the said house. According to the plaintiff, during the year 1992, the then Town Municipality has acquired the land bearing survey No.198/2 of Karadal village under Asharaya and Dr. B.R Ambedkar Housing Scheme and it has formed a number of plots and plot No.114 was allotted to the plaintiff on 16081992 and possession was also given to the plaintiff. The Chief Officer, of the Town Municipality has issued a title deed in respect of the said suit property bearing Plot No.114 in favour of the plaintiff on 16081992 and the plaintiff has constructed the house by spending Rs.20,000/- on the said plot under the Asharaya Scheme and the plaintiff began to reside in the house till April 2002. 3. It was further contended that, defendant has requested the plaintiff to give the suit house and promised to vacate the house for her on temporary residence for a period of one year as she was deserted by her husband and defendant promised to vacate the house in question and to handover the possession of the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given the possession of the house only on the request made by the defendant in the presence of Amarappa and Somappa residents of Lingasugur. The plaintiff has given the possession of the house only on the request made by the defendant in the presence of Amarappa and Somappa residents of Lingasugur. The plaintiff has made request to the defendant to vacate the suit house and handed over the same in the month of June 2004, for his residence and he was in need of it, but the defendant has denied the request of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has got cause of action to file the suit, the plaintiff after issuing notice has filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession etc. 4. The Defendant filed written statement denying averments made in plaint and contended that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house. The defendant is not aware whether the plot No.114 pertains to the suit house. The defendant has got constructed the suit house through the aid of T.M.C Lingasugur. Since the date of completion of construction about 12 years, the defendant has been residing in the suit house and she is unaware of the payment of the house tax by the plaintiff. She has further contended that, the Municipality has not constructed the suit house on plot NO.114 for the plaintiff and the plaintiff never entered into the said house nor was residing in the same at no point of time, till April 2002. She has further contended that, the defendant was the follower of Lingasugur MLA Sri. Raja Amareshwar Naik, who was the Minister during the year 1991, he being the Chairman of Asharaya Scheme directed the Chief Officer and the then elected body of T.M.C to allow the defendant to construct a room on the vacant open space situated in the Asharaya Layout. The defendant got constructed the house with the help of Sri. Raja Amarashwara Naik since more than 12 years, the defendant has been residing in the said house. The plaintiff is resident of Kasba Lingasugur and who was not eligible for grant of house site under Asharaya Scheme. The defendant has been residing in the said house since more than 12 years as of right to the knowledge of the plaintiff and every body concerned without interruption of any one. Therefore, the defendant was in possession of the suit by way of adverse possession and has perfected the title over the suit house. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Therefore, the defendant was in possession of the suit by way of adverse possession and has perfected the title over the suit house. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit house property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he had permitted the defendant to reside in the suit house for temporary period? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant refused to vacate the suit house property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for there life of possession as prayed for? 6. What order or decree? 6. In order to establish the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and 2 witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.7. To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant got examined herself as DW.1 and 3 witnesses as DW.2 to DW.4 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to 4. 7. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded finding that plaintiff proved that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and proved that he has permitted the defendant to reside in the suit house for temporary period, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has refused to vacate the possession of the suit house and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and for possession of the suit house as prayed for. Accordingly, the trial court by the impugned Judgment and decree dated: 03042008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit house and directed the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit house within 30 days. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.20/2008 before the learned Sehnior Civil Judge Lingasugur. After hearing both the parties, the Lower Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and decree dated: 29072009 has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below did not deter the appellant from preferring the present Regular Second Appeal as last ditch attempt. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below did not deter the appellant from preferring the present Regular Second Appeal as last ditch attempt. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri. Manjunath M. Chidalli learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently contended that, the impugned Judgment and decreed passed by the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He would contend that, both the courts below disbelieved Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 attested copy of the guidelines, tax paid receipts and endorsement. He would further contend that, as per the guidelines Ex.D.1 the very grant itself is abinitio and void. Therefore the Court below cannot declare that the plaintiff is the owner on the basis of void document Ex.P.1. He would further contend that, DW.1 to DW.3 have specifically stated on oath that, the defendant is in possession of the suit house, the trial ought not to have dismissed the suit and the same was erroneously confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. He would further contend that, the Judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record. Therefore, he sought to set-aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by Courts below by allowing the present appeal. 12. Per contra Sri. Ganesh Naik learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below. He would further contend that defendant except alleging that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property no material documents are produced before the Court. He would further contend that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and he has permitted the defendant to reside temporarily in the suit house constructed the T.M.C at the instance of the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant cannot be in possession of the suit house. He would further contend that, merely she is the follower of local M.L.A is not a ground to continue in possession of the suit property, which belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 13. Therefore the defendant cannot be in possession of the suit house. He would further contend that, merely she is the follower of local M.L.A is not a ground to continue in possession of the suit property, which belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit house by virtue of Ex.P.1 Haku Patra issued by Municipality, Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are tax paid receipts, Ex.P.6 is the Legal Notice issued by the plaintiff and Ex.P.7 is the reply notice. PW.2 and PW.3 have supported the case of the plaintiff. The defendant except production of Ex.D.1 and tax paid receipts, has not produced any documents. Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.4 are the documents issued subsequent to filing of the suit. 14. The materials on record Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 clearly depicts that, the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property bearing house in plot No.114 measuring 20 X 30 ft. in survey No.198/2 of Karadal under Asharaya and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Housing Scheme, Ex.P.1 Hakku Patra is the basic document issued by the Chief Officer of the Municipality under Asharaya scheme, Ex.P.7 is the reply notice issued by the defendant to the Ex.P.6 Legal Notice, she has stated that, she is in possession of the suit house since more than 11 years as on the date of the suit, her possession was not more than 12 years as could be seen from Ex.P.7. Ex.D.1 as contended by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, attested copy of the guidelines given by the Managing Director of Sri. Rajiv Gandhi, Rural Housing Scheme. The defendant by relying on these guidelines has tried to take plea that some of the Hakku Patras are forged and fabricated. As per Ex.D.1 there was a direction for inspection to conduct enquiry. Ex.D.1 does not disclose that, in respect of suit property. Ex.D.2 is the installment of Asharaya Scheme House in ownership column name of the Hanumantha and payment column shown the name of the defendant. Ex.D.3 is receipt of the T.M.C., Lingasugur. In the ownership column shown the name of the plaintiff and payment made by the defendant. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 came into existence during the pendency of the suit as already stated supra. 15. Ex.D.3 is receipt of the T.M.C., Lingasugur. In the ownership column shown the name of the plaintiff and payment made by the defendant. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 came into existence during the pendency of the suit as already stated supra. 15. PW.1 to PW.3 have specifically stated on oath that, the plaintiff is the owner of the property and the plaintiff has permitted the defendant to reside in the house temporarily. DW.2 though stated that, the defendant has got constructed a house through aid of T.M.C., Lingasugur since from the date of construction. DW.4 who is the Officer of T.M.C Lingasugur has admitted in his cross-examination that, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are issued by their office and Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3 are pertaining to the installment of loan, which are standing in the name of the plaintiff and he was not dealing the section when Ex.D.4 was issued. The contention of the defendant is negated by DW.4. DW.2 in his evidence tried to support the defense of the defendant, but from the admissions made in the cross-examination shows that the defendant was residing with her husband. The admissions made in the cross-examination corroborates the circumstances of the claim made by the plaintiff in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff in respect of giving the suit house to the defendant for her temporary residence. 16. The DW.3 has stated that Hakku patra of the suit house was issued in favour of the defendant, but the defendant has not produced any documents. Therefore the Court below disbelieved the evidence of DW.2 and DW.3 and in fact the evidence of DW.4 clearly against the case of the defendant. DW.4 further admitted in the cross-examination that, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are pertaining to the suit property stands in the name of the plaintiff and the suit schedule property was not regularized in the name of the defendant. The contention of the defendant that, the plaintiff created documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 was denied by DW.4 and stated that they were issued under official capacity. Admittedly Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are not challenged by the defendant. The pleadings, material documents clearly indicates that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and permitted the defendant to reside in the suit property for her temporary residence. Admittedly Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are not challenged by the defendant. The pleadings, material documents clearly indicates that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and permitted the defendant to reside in the suit property for her temporary residence. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, he has issued Ex.P.6 Legal Notice and in the reply defendant has contended that she is in possession of the suit property for more than 11 years. 17. The trial court further recorded a finding that, the defendant has not admitted the title of the plaintiff and tried to contend that, she is the absolute owner and alternative plea taken by adverse possession. There is no reliable documentary evidence produced by the defendant to prove that she has acquired the title by adverse possession in respect of suit property. The plaintiff is successful to prove by producing public documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 that he is the owner and successful to prove that, he has given possession to the defendant by the testimony of PW.2 and PW.3. Therefore the trial Court decreed the suit, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and entitled for possession from the defendant. Accordingly directed the defendant to vacate the possession of the suit property within 30 days. 18. The Lower Appellate Court on reappreciating the entire material on record and after formulaing the points for determination as contemplated under Order 41 RULE 31 of Code of Civil Procedure has concurred with the findings recorded by the court below and held that the plaintiff has proved that he is the owner of the suit property as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. The material on record clearly depicts that, the defendant was given possession for her temporary residence by the plaintiff and the defendant has not produced any material documents to prove either she is the owner of the suit property or by adverse possession against to the plaintiff. 19. The material on record clearly depicts that, the defendant was given possession for her temporary residence by the plaintiff and the defendant has not produced any material documents to prove either she is the owner of the suit property or by adverse possession against to the plaintiff. 19. The material on record, clearly depicts that, it is not the case of the defendant that she is the owner in possession by virtue of any grant, nor filed any counter claim as contemplated under order 8 Rule 6 of C.P.C. In the absence of any material documents produced to prove her title and lawful possession, the courts below justified in declaring that the plaintiff is the owner and directed the defendant to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The same is in accordance with law. The appellant has not made any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below and no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal under the provisions of section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits, at the stage of Admission.