JUDGMENT : The unsuccessful first defendant filed the present Regular Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated: 18062017 made in R.A.No.34/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC B. Bagewadi dismissing the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court dated: 01092016 made in O.S.No.355/2011 on the file of Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.) Basavana Bagewadi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property more fully described in the sketch attached to the plaint. 2. The first respondent who is the plaintiff before the trial court filed O.S.No.355/2011 against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property contending that the second defendant being the owner of the suit schedule property has executed registered sale deed dated: 07042011 in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.5,04,000/and he was put in possession as on the date of the sale deed and in pursuance of the sale deed, plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He further contended that, in the month of June 2011, the first defendant started obstructing the plaintiff use and enjoyment of the suit land. On enquiry, it was found that, defendant No.1 is asserting that, defendant No.2 entered into an agreement of the said suit land in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 1994. However there is no agreement of sale executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Even it is considered that, there is agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.1, he has not taken any steps in respect of the same even after lapse of 17 years and has not sought for specific performance of contract. It was further contended that, as on the date of execution of the sale deed and handing over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 has not all objected for the sale or for handing over the possession of the suit land. On the advice of ill-wishers of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 is unnecessarily obstructing in the plaintiff'’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. 3. On the advice of ill-wishers of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 is unnecessarily obstructing in the plaintiff'’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land. 3. It was further contended that, the defendant No.1 under misguidance filed O.S.No.262/20111 against the defendant No.2 and the wife of the plaintiff, However the suit was not for specific performance of contract. Even the plaintiff is not made party to that suit. Defendant No.1 filed caveat petition against the plaintiff on 15072011. The defendant No.1 is causing disturbances in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property without heeding the request of the plaintiff and elders. Therefore the plaintiff filed suit for the relief of permanent injunction. 4. In response to the summons issued, defendant No.1 filed written statement denying averments made in plaint and admitted that the defendant No.2 is the original owner of the suit property. However, it is denied that, the possession of the suit property was handedover to the plaintiff in view of sale deed executed in his favour. It is specifically contended that, the alleged sale deed is a sham, bogus document, contrary to the true facts and circumstances. It was further contended that, no actual delivery of possession took place between defendant No.2 and plaintiff and defendant No.2 himself was not in actual possession of the suit property since more than seven years, prior to execution of the alleged sale deed, there was no occasion for defendant No.2 to hand over the possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It was contended that, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file suit and the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit land? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he his peaceful possession and enjoyment is obstructed by defendant No.1? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant No.1? 4. 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.4. 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant No.1? 4. 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.4. 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 3. 7. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded finding that plaintiff proved that he is in lawful possession of the suit property and proved that defendant No.1 is obstructing his peaceful possession and he is also entitled the relief of perpetual injunction against the first defendant. Accordingly the trial court by the impugned Judgment and decree dated: 01092016 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit property more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant No.1 has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.34/2016 before the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., B. Bagewadi. After hearing both the parties, the Lower Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and decree dated: 18072017 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/defendant No.1 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. Vinayak Apte learned counsel appearing for appellant/defendant No.1 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. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 11. Sri. Vinayak Apte learned counsel appearing for appellant/defendant No.1 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 further contend that, second defendant who is the owner of the suit property in question has executed an unregistered agreement of sale on 12-11-1994 in favour of defendant No.1 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,52,000/-and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of agreement and he has improved the land and planted six coconut trees and constructed house after obtaining electricity connection, the same has been ignored by the courts below. He would further contend that, he has already filed O.S.No.262/2011 against the defendant No.2 and wife of the plaintiff to enforce the unregistered agreement dated: 12-11-1994 and the said matter is still pending for adjudication. Therefore the Courts below were not justified in granting injunction, in the absence of material documents produced by the plaintiff. He further contended that, both the courts below without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to decree the suit of the plaintiff. The impugned Judgment and decree of the courts below are liable to be set aside for non-consideration of 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 Srinivasa Basvanthrao Patil learned counsel appearing respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below. He would further contend that defendant No.1 claiming his possession based on unregistered agreement of sale dated: 12-11-1994, the same is denied by the alleged vendor of the defendant No.1 i.e., defendant No.2 in his evidence and stated on oath that, he has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 07-04-2011 in respect of the suit property and put the plaintiff in possession. Absolutely no material document is produced to prove that the defendant No.1 was put in possession by the defendant No.2 by virtue of registered sale agreement dated: 12111994. Absolutely no material document is produced to prove that the defendant No.1 was put in possession by the defendant No.2 by virtue of registered sale agreement dated: 12111994. Therefore he submits that, both the courts concurrently held that, the plaintiff has made out prima-facie his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of suit. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 13. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arise for consideration is: (1) Whether the Courts below justified in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the appellant has made out any case to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below exercising the powers of this court under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure? 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 15. It is the case of the plaintiff that, he is the owner in lawful possession of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated: 07-04-2011 as per Ex.P.4 and his name entered in the revenue records record of right as per Ex.P.1 and mutation extract as per Ex.P.2 and defendant No.1 is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 16. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property under unregistered agreement dated: 12.11.1994 and he improved the land by digging the well, planted coconut trees. But the alleged agreement has not been produced before the court to prove that he was put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 who is the vendor of the plaintiff and alleged executant of the unregistered sale agreement in favour of the defendant No.1 dated: 12111994 has not filed any written statement. 17. It is well settled principle of law that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the prima-facie lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property has to be seen based on the pleadings and material documents as on the date of the suit. 17. It is well settled principle of law that, in a suit for permanent injunction, the prima-facie lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property has to be seen based on the pleadings and material documents as on the date of the suit. According to the plaintiff, that he has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated: 07-04-2011 from the defendant No.2 and all the revenue entries were entered in his name in the revenue records including mutation and the suit filed on 05-08-2011 for permanent injunction. The defendant No.2 who is the vendor of the plaintiff examined as PW.3, has stated on oath that, he has executed sale deed as per Ex.P.4 in favour of the plaintiff on 07-11-2011 and the plaintiff was put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has denied that, he has never executed unregistered agreement in favour of the defendant No.1 on 12-11-1994 as alleged. It is also not in dispute that, the defendant No.1 has filed O.S.No.262/2011 for specific performance of contract against the defendant No.2 and the wife of the plaintiff to enforce the unregistered agreement dated: 12-11-1994. Admittedly the defendant No.1 has not obtained any interim order and injunction before the trial court in the said suit pending between the parties. He has not produced copy of the agreement before the court to show that, possession was delivered to him, except production of plaint copy in O.S.No.262/2011 as per Ex.D.2 and Ex.P.3 also produced by the plaintiff. Based on the aforesaid admitted facts, the trial court recorded a finding that, the plaintiff has made out his lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit and proved that, defendant No.1 has obstructed the possession of the plaintiff and he is entitled for permanent injunction and also recorded a finding that, the defendant No.1 has not produced any material document to show that, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by virtue of unregistered sale agreement dated: 12-11-1994. Accordingly the suit came to be decreed restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff. 18. Accordingly the suit came to be decreed restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff. 18. On the appeal filed before the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court after following the procedure as contemplated under order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure has formulated the points for consideration: (1) Whether the appellant proves that, he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property? (2) Whether appellant further proves that, the alleged sale deed executed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 in favour of respondent No.1/plainrtiff is vague document and no possession was handed over to the plaintiff at the time of said document? (3) Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial court needs interference? 19. The Lower Appellate Court on reconsidering the entire material on record recorded a finding that, the appellant failed to prove that he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property and further failed to prove that, the alleged sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is vague document and no possession was handed over to him at the time of said document and the Judgment and decree of the trial court does not call for any interference and further recorded a finding that, if at all there was agreement of sale in favour of appellant/defendant No.1 and if the possession was handed over to him by virtue of the agreement of sale, then he would have filed suit for specific performance of contract as against the original owner. However no filing of the suit for specific performance, clearly goes to show that, no agreement of sale was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1/appellant. Further recorded a finding that, as per Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, possession always follows the title. The present appellant/defendant No.1 has not better title than the respondent No.1. The plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, registered sale deed is a lawful and genuine document regarding the transfer of title in favour of the person with respect to immovable property. The present appellant/defendant No.1 has not better title than the respondent No.1. The plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, registered sale deed is a lawful and genuine document regarding the transfer of title in favour of the person with respect to immovable property. In the registered sale deed, there are clear recitals regarding passing over of the title and handing over of possession of the suit land by the original owner i.e., defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. 20. It is a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff has to prove prima-facie case as on the date of the suit by producing both oral and documentary evidence clearly proved that, the plaintiff was in possession as on the date of the suit. The defendant No.2 who has been examined as DW.3 has stated that, he was owner of the suit property and he was working as Development Officer, United India Insurance Company and he has stated that, there were coconut trees in the suit property and there is one well, and there is no house. In the cross-examination he has admitted that, about 15 years back, he had done some transaction regarding the suit property with Neelu Nayak and Harilal Nayak i.e., present appellant. However denied that, he got executed agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.1 on 12.11.1994. He has also denied that, on the same day he has handed over the possession of the suit land to the defendant No.1. Considering the photographs produced by the appellant, the appellate Court recorded a finding that the photographs are not at all evidence to prove the possession of a person for any particular property. In the electricity bill or receipt no property number is mentioned. Hence, by virtue of said documents it cannot be considered that, the appellant is in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit and till today. Defendant No.1 has not at all produced the copy of the alleged agreement said to have been executed by the second defendant. In the absence of any material produced and in the presence of both registered sale deed and RTC produced by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the trial Court. Defendant No.1 has not at all produced the copy of the alleged agreement said to have been executed by the second defendant. In the absence of any material produced and in the presence of both registered sale deed and RTC produced by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal concurring with the finding of the trial Court. In view of the above, the Courts below justified in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the appellant has not made out any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below under the provisions of Section 100 of CPC and the point raised in the present appeal has been answered accordingly. 21. Both the Courts below considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record have recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved and defendant No.1 has not produced any material documents to show that defendant No.2 has executed agreement of sale dated 12.11.1994 in his favour and he has not produced the said document before the Court and not marked the alleged document. Second defendant was examined before the Court as PW.3 and he has stated on oath that he has executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.P.4 and delivered the possession and in the categorical terms he has denied the alleged execution of agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.1 on 12.11.1994 and specifically denied that possession was not delivered nor he has executed any agreement of sale. Such a findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the appellant has not made out any substantial question of law to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Court below in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 22. However, PW.3 original owner has stated that there was transactions between him and the first defendant and as already stated above, first defendant already filed OS No.262/2011 for specific performance of contract and it is for him to establish his right in the suit pending between the parties. Any observation made by the trial Court or lower appellate Court and this Court shall not come in the way of either parties in establishing their right in accordance with law in the suit pending between the parties. Ordered accordingly.