JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, Perused the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court of the records. In order to avoid the confusion and repetition of facts, the rank of the parties, as per ranks before the Trial Court is retained. 2. It is seen from the records that, the plaintiff by name Veereshappa filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title, and for vacant possession of the suit schedule properties, a land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 0.14 Guntas, situated at Danapur village, Gangavathi taluka having specific boundaries. 3. The plaintiff claimed that, the suit scheduled property on the ground that, he has purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.6,000/- from its previous owner on 14.02.2003. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till 09.12.2012. 4. It is alleged that, the defendants are strangers to the suit property, without having any rights, title and interest, whatsoever over the suit property and suddenly came to the suit land and started to dump the wastage and formed a manure-pit-forcibly in the said land. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed that, there was interference to the title of the plaintiff and actual possession was disturbed by means of creating a manure-pit in the said land. 5. The defendants made their appearance and in fact they have taken up the contention that, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land more than 60 years, they have been stocking the fodder and manure etc., in the said land. However, in written statement they have not taken up any such contention as to what exactly the nature of their possession over the suit schedule properties. 6. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of the suit property land bearing No.7 measuring 14 guntas situated at Danapur village as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that on 09/12/2012 the defendants forcibly took the possession over the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for ? 4. What order or decree ? 7. 2. Whether plaintiff proves that on 09/12/2012 the defendants forcibly took the possession over the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for ? 4. What order or decree ? 7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 45 documents and the defendants have adduced evidence of eight witnesses and got exhibited 17 documents. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit of trial Court by answering issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and granting the reliefs as prayed for, by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred the appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gangavathi in R.A. No.19/2015 on various grounds. The first Appel late Court considering the grounds urged before it, and after going through the judgment of the trial Court, has formulated the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the Trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and such calls for interference at the hands of this Court ? 3. What order ? After reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence with reference to the pleadings of the parties, the appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by answering point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. The said two judgments are cal led in question before this Court. 8. The trial Court, in fact, while appreciating the evidence on record, has not only taken the view that, the defendants have not even placed any materials to show that, they are in actual possession and enjoyment of this land in Sy.No.7 to the extent of 14 Guntas and the documents produced by them i.e., Ex.D1 to D17, which are the Patta books, Tax paid receipts and extracts of the demand register issued by the Panchayat. Those documents as found proved by the trial Court, the first Appel late Court has also mentioned that, the Panchayat property of Danapur Village at Col No.5, there is no mention that, they have entered into possession of the property of the plaintiff at any point of time prior to the purchase of the property by the plaintiff. Those documents as found proved by the trial Court, the first Appel late Court has also mentioned that, the Panchayat property of Danapur Village at Col No.5, there is no mention that, they have entered into possession of the property of the plaintiff at any point of time prior to the purchase of the property by the plaintiff. As per the documents produced by the defendants, no where it is mentioned in those documents that, their properties i.e., Nos.205, 206, 212 and 214, which are referable to Ex.D1 to D4, D7 and D11 and also that they are not with reference to Sy.No.7 of Danapur Village. 9. The oral evidence of the defendant witnesses disclose that, they have stated only with regard to the possession of the defendants that, the defendants have been using the manure pits in the property of the plaintiff. Nowhere, it is stated actually, when they have entered into the possession of the property, in what manner they disturbed the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff, what is the nature of their possession. In the absence of such things, the Court cannot draw inference that, the defendants’ possession is legal or illegal possession and they have not even stated that, they are in adverse possession over the property hostile to the interest of the lawful owner. In the absence of such material and on the other hand, the plaintiff has produced the documents as per Ex.P2 to P14, which are revenue records, particularly RTC pertaining to Sy.No.7 for the year 2001 to 2006, which shows that, at column No.9, 10 and 12, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the same has been standing in the name of plaintiff from the date of purchase and mutation was also accepted in M.R. No.69/2005. Keeping the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff and defendants juxtapose to each other, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the defendants have not placed any material to show that, they have entered into the possession of the property, much prior to the purchase of the property by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the plaintiff has deposed through his witnesses that, on 09.12.2012, the defendants have created manure-pits in the land of the plaintiff that made the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of suit schedule property. 10. On the other hand, the plaintiff has deposed through his witnesses that, on 09.12.2012, the defendants have created manure-pits in the land of the plaintiff that made the plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of suit schedule property. 10. The trial Court also almost reappreciating the above said oral and documentary evidence, though the defendants have claimed before the first Appellate Court that, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property, but, the defendants have not taken up any specific stand with regard to the nature of their possession. Therefore, the appellate Court has also come to the same conclusion, as that of the trial Court. 11. It is worth to mention here a decision of High Court reported in 1990(3) KLJ (Supp.) 283(HC) in the case of S.K. Ningappa V/s Puttappa. Wherein, this Court held that, “Section 110 r/w Sections 102 & 114-Possession of Land-Burden of proof –Owner of land when in possession: presumption in law is that possession goes with ownership – Person who otherwise asserts possession has to rebut that presumption” Therefore, unless the defendants says the nature of possession as he has entered into the land of plaintiff, unless he explains the nature of possession, it is deemed that, the plaintiff deemed to be in de-jure possession of the property, and though defendants found to be in actual possession of the property without explaining the nature of their possession. Therefore, I don’t find any strong reasons to differ from the opinion by the trial Court and appellate Court, which are purely on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, by appreciating factual aspects. 12. When the trial Court and the first appellate Court have appreciated the factual aspects and there is no serious prejudice has been occurred to the defendants, such judgments cannot be interfered with, in any manner. I don’t find any reasons to interfere, as there is no substantial question of law arises for consideration for this Court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at threshold at the admission stage itself and the same is dismissed with costs.