JUDGMENT : N. K. SUDHINDRARAO, J. 1. These are the eight regular second appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Appeals, more fully stated in the table below: Sl. No. RSA No. and filed by whom RA No. filed by whom Result and date of disposal made by Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)) Shimoga OS.No. Result and date of disposal made by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Shimoga 1. 558/2008 Plaintiff 11/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 135/2002 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 2. 1580/2012 Plaintiff 16/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 535/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 3. 555/2008 Plaintiff 32/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 463/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 4. 559/2008 Plaintiff 31/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 503/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 5. 557/2008 Plaintiff 30/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 463/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 6. 556/2008 Plaintiff 28/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 494/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 7. 2086/2010 Plaintiff 13/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 136/2002 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 8. 1581/2012 Plaintiff 12/2005 Defendants Allowed DD 28.7.2007 493/2001 DD 27.10.2004 Decreed 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties hereinafter are referred to with their ranks as held by them before the trial Court. 3. All the original suits are stated to be filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants are common in all the original suits. The plaintiffs in all the suits claim that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 4. The suit schedule property in all the cases are different extent of lands in Survey No.29 of Yergnal village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. 5. The trial Court clubbed all the original suits on the memos filed by the learned counsel for plaintiffs as the defendants are common and the relief's claimed are identical in respect of the same survey number, but different extent. 6. The trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW-1 and DW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P7 and Exs.D1 to D10. The trial Judge decreed the suits of the plaintiffs and on appeals preferred by the defendants in regular appeals, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeals as mentioned above. The said judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is challenged in these appeals by the plaintiffs. 7. The trial Judge decreed the suits of the plaintiffs and on appeals preferred by the defendants in regular appeals, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeals as mentioned above. The said judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is challenged in these appeals by the plaintiffs. 7. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court in all the appeals are as under: In RSA Nos.558/2008, 1580/2012, 559/2008 "In the absence of an issue as between the parties, as to the nature of the land in the first place, whether the first appellate court was justified in addressing this as a point for consideration, without granting an opportunity to the parties to tender evidence and adduce arguments in respect of the same? In RSA Nos.555/2008, 557/2008, 556/2008, 2086/2010 "Whether the first appellate Court was justified in addressing the issue as to the nature of the land when such an issue was never framed before the trial court and no opportunity was granted to the appellant to address the same?" 8. The plaintiff in the cases claim to be in possession and enjoyment of their respective extent of suit schedule property i.e. in survey No.29 of Yergnal village from 1973-1974 to 1977-1978. Though admitted owner of the suit schedule property is one M/s. Tunga Badra Sugar Works, the said Sugar Works did not cultivate the schedule property as it was unable for cultivation with ditches, plants, stones etc. The plaintiffs with the help of huge investment and labour improved the land and used to cultivate the same for getting it turned to fertiore. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/ plaintiffs Smt. H.R. Anitha would submit that Forest Department is not the owner of the schedule property and it belonged to Tunga Badra Sugar Works and plaintiffs were permitted by the said Sugar Works to cultivate the lands, as such, the defendants Government have no right over the suit property. She would further submit that Possessor Column in RTC for the year 1974-75 to 1977-1978 stands in the name of respective plaintiffs. 10. Learned Government Pleader, Smt. Rafiunnissa, would submit that in the light of the ownership of the property lying with the Forest Department and in the interest of public, plaintiffs cannot maintain the suits. She would further submit that Possessor Column in RTC for the year 1974-75 to 1977-1978 stands in the name of respective plaintiffs. 10. Learned Government Pleader, Smt. Rafiunnissa, would submit that in the light of the ownership of the property lying with the Forest Department and in the interest of public, plaintiffs cannot maintain the suits. The claim of the plaintiffs is that, the defendants Forest Department started laying its claim on the schedule property by asserting that it belonged to the Department of Forest and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs. 11. The learned trial Judge decreed the original suits. It is necessary to mention that a person in possession is entitled to continue in possession unless he is evicted by due process of law. The ownership of schedule property as states by the plaintiffs themselves, belong to Tunga Badra Sugar Works. 12. XXX XXX XXX 13. No documents showing the authority given by Tunga Badra Sugar Works to the plaintiffs are forthcoming even before this Court. Further the Sugar Works has not filed any objections against the defendants claim. The plaintiffs claim that the possession is evidenced from 1973-1974 to 1977-1978. No information regarding any proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court to hold that plaintiffs were authorized to continue in possession. When the land is stated to be a forest land, plaintiffs themselves admitted that they cultivate the lands, there is no specific way in which the plaintiffs are claiming the possession over the property. The employer of the plaintiffs Tunga Badra Sugar Works is not a party to the suits. Though, it is stated by the plaintiffs that Sugar Works did not cultivate the property and the same has to be cleaned and made fit for cultivation and it was done at the instances of the plaintiffs. With all that said, plaintiffs say that they are in possession of the property for several years. Plaintiffs are not asserting either as owners or as authorized authority to be in permissive possession or hostile possession. 13. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that their cases are recognized by the trial Court and has rightly observed that plaintiffs are in settled possession and entitled to continue in possession till process of eviction is made by due course of law. 14. 13. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that their cases are recognized by the trial Court and has rightly observed that plaintiffs are in settled possession and entitled to continue in possession till process of eviction is made by due course of law. 14. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that, in para-17 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed as under: "17. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently argued that the plaintiffs are in settled possession of the suit schedule properties and they are entitled to protect their possession over the same. The defendants cannot interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs cannot be thrown out of the properties without recoursing to the due process of law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the rulings reported in ILR 1999 Kar.301, ILR 1999 Kar.1451, ILR 2000 Kar.435 & ILR 2002 Kar.174. The dictum of the above rulings is that a person in settled possession though has no legal title is entitled to resist or defend his possession even against a rightful owner, who tries to dispossess him. The above rulings further laid down that where a trespasser was in settled possession, he cannot be thrown away except in due course of law, because such a trespasser is entitled to resist or defend his possession even as against the rightful owner who tries to dispossess him. In this regard, it is appropriate to press into service the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1972 SC 2229 . Specific Relief Act(1963)S.37: "Plaintiff in possession of suit property; he can, on strength of his possession, resist interference from defendant who has no better title than himself and get injunction restraining defendant from disturbing his possession. Now it is a settled law that the person in settled possession even if it is against a true owner, his possession shall be protected and the owner is entitled to evict him only under due process of law. In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs have proved the possessory title over the suit properties and the defendants have not produced any better title to displace the case of the plaintiffs." 15. In the present case on hand, the plaintiffs have proved the possessory title over the suit properties and the defendants have not produced any better title to displace the case of the plaintiffs." 15. It is necessary to mention that the learned trial Judge, it appears, was carried away in mentioning the concept of possession which fails even the plaintiffs are in possession, When there are sufficient materials to show that the plaintiffs are neither owners or lessees nor protectors or persons under valid possession known to canons of law. Tunga Badra Sugar Works could have been examined regarding the documents of title. Here are the plaintiffs who agitate for protection and claim the relief of injunction on the ground that they were placed in possession by Tunga Badra Sugar Works and cultivating the property thus denies the right of defendants-Forest Department. In the circumstances, the claim of the plaintiffs is un-meaningful. It was also submitted that the sum and substance of the claim of the plaintiffs is, the land belongs to Tunga Badra Sugar Works i.e. employer Factory. 16. Here, it is necessary to made a mention that the Court could not get the required assistance by Government. The matter had to be adjudicated by perusing the records. There were no proper answer for question. 17. The trial Court erred seriously in decreeing the suits of the plaintiffs in original side. However, the first Appellate Court has rightly dismissed all the appeals filed by the plaintiffs. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. Accordingly, substantial questions of law raised in these appeals are answered. 18. For the foregoing reasons, appeals are devoid of merits and they are dismissed with costs. The common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court as mentioned above are confirmed.