JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. These two appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 12.03.2004 decreeing O.S.No.90/1996 and dismissing O.S.No.131/1997 on the file of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Davanagere. 2. The factual matrix of these two suits are in respect of very same parties and also in respect of very same house property bearing door No.307, both the plaintiff and defendants are claiming the rights in respect of suit schedule properties which are mentioned in respect of suits seeking relief of declaration and injunction. 3. The gist of the plaint in O.S.No.90/1996 is that the plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the schedule property which has been purchased from one Sri B.B. Srinivas under a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1995 to whom it was bequeathed by his mother Smt. Sarasvathamma through a registered WILL in the year 1993. It is also the case of the plaintiff that originally that property was purchased by Late father of Sarasvathamma i.e., Murugesh Modaliar for a valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 21.07.1934 in the form of an open Site No.15 measuring East to West 100 feet and North to South 40 feet and by constructing two houses was enjoying in his life time. After his death Smt. Sarasvathamma who was the only daughter had succeeded to the said property. There are number of civil disputes between her and her sons and daughters. The name of her husband was late Balakrishna Modaliar and he had died long ago. Thus the plaintiff by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 04.12.1995 has become the owner in possession of the suit house and khata stands in his name. He contends that during the month of December 1996, the 1st defendant who in fact is the resident of Madras some how managed the local Police Officer i.e., defendant-2 for dispossession of the plaintiff from schedule house and a case was registered by making allegation that Late B.B. Srinivas had got created the fictitious WILL in his name. The plaintiff is in personal occupation of the suit house for his residence. Therefore, he prayed this Court to declare him as an absolute owner in possession of schedule property with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with its peaceful possession and enjoyment. 4. The plaintiff is in personal occupation of the suit house for his residence. Therefore, he prayed this Court to declare him as an absolute owner in possession of schedule property with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with its peaceful possession and enjoyment. 4. The case against the second defendant-Police officer got dismissed and the third defendant so-called purchaser of the schedule property from the first defendant has been impleaded. 5. Both the defendants have appeared through learned counsel and filed their common Written Statement. The gist in brief is that the fact of deceased Murugesh Modaliar purchased site measuring 100ft x 40ft and after constructing the house enjoyed his own title is not fully correct. Deceased Smt. Sarasvathamma alone was not the daughter. There were other daughters namely Smt. Kamalmma, Nagarathnamma and Sarojamma. Hence after his death Smt. Sarasvathamma alone could not succeed the entire property and it would not be her exclusive streedhan property and that she could not execute a registered WILL in favour of her son Late B.B. Srinivas and the said WILL is created and the said Sarasvathamma could not have any valid right to execute the Will in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff. The Taluka Magistrate proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The contention was taken in the written statement that Late Balakrishna Modaliar, husband of Sarasvathamma had purchased the entire schedule property in the name of his father in law Murugesh Modaliar as a benamidar and he had even mortgaged it once in the year 1942 in favour of Gurunathappa Bondade under a registered Mortgage Deed. Thereafter Balakrishna Modaliar has gifted the suit schedule property in favour of his daughter i.e., first defendant through a registered Gift Deed dated 06.05.1960, and she has obtained endorsement from the City Municipality, Davangere for transfer of Khatha in her name. Besides, in the year 1972 she had leased out that property to one Khamithkar Narayan Rao for whose eviction HRC No.120/82 was also initiated before the Munsiff Court at Davangere. 6. As a matter of fact, there was a partition suit filed in O.S.No.64/86 in between the 1st defendant and brothers B.B. Devaraj, B.B. Srinivas and others which was decreed. Besides, in the year 1972 she had leased out that property to one Khamithkar Narayan Rao for whose eviction HRC No.120/82 was also initiated before the Munsiff Court at Davangere. 6. As a matter of fact, there was a partition suit filed in O.S.No.64/86 in between the 1st defendant and brothers B.B. Devaraj, B.B. Srinivas and others which was decreed. Another suit O.S.NO.137/96 filed by B.B. Srinivas before the Munisff Court at Davangere without disclosing the fact of his selling the suit schedule house to plaintiff is still pending. Therefore, the first defendant as its absolute owner has sold the schedule house to third defendant for valuable consideration and would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious. 7. Based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendants, the Court below has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves title to the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that vendor of the plaintiff Sri. B.B. Srinivas acquired title to the suit property under Will as contended in plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff further proves lawful possession over the suit property? 4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant-2 unlawfully closed the door of the property and put his personal lock to the property? 5. Whether the defendant-1 proves that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Balakrishna Modaliyar and he gifted the property in her favour under registered Gift Deed dated 06.05.1960? 6. Whether defendant-1 further proves that she became owner to the suit property? 7. Whether defendant-3 proves that his vendor has title to the suit property? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the releifs sought? 9. What decree or order ? 8. The third defendant in O.S.No.90/1996 has filed another suit in O.S.No.131/1997 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 contending that he is the absolute owner of the property and that he has purchased the property from Smt. Laxmidevamma (1st defendant in O.S.NO.90/96) under registered sale deed dated 12.04.1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and he has been put in possession also. The third defendant in O.S.No.90/1996 has filed another suit in O.S.No.131/1997 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 contending that he is the absolute owner of the property and that he has purchased the property from Smt. Laxmidevamma (1st defendant in O.S.NO.90/96) under registered sale deed dated 12.04.1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and he has been put in possession also. The contention that the property was belonging to Late Balakrishna Modaliar and he had gifted it in favour of his daughter Smt. Lakshmidevamma through a registered Gift deed dated 06.05.1960 and the plaintiff reiterated the contention which has been taken in the written statement filed in O.S.No.90/1996 contending that the alleged WILL is created in favour of B.B. Srinivas and further contends that Taluka Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. against the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 and defendant in O.S.No.131/1997 has filed the written statement in the line of the contention taken in his plaint. This Court does not want to reiterate the same since both are seeking relief of declaration and injunction and the Court below in respect of the said suit has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves title to the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit property originally belongs to Late Sri.B.Balakrishna Modaliar who gifted the same to Smt. Laxmidevamma on 06.05.1960? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the cause of action as alleged? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the defendant proves that he is the owner as contended in Para-10(a) to (i) of the Written Statement? 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought? 7. What decree or order? 9. A perusal of the records would disclose the suits were pending before different Courts. Hence, Civil Misc.No.13/2001 was filed seeking transfer. Accordingly, O.S.No.131/1997 was transferred to the very same Court where O.S.No.90/1996 was pending. Accordingly, common evidence of both the parties and proceedings have been recorded in the main suit in O.S No.90/1996. 10. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 has got himself examined and also examined PWs.2 to 6 and relied upon Exs.P1 to 17 which include the original sale deeds, original WILL, Encumbrance certificates, Newspaper publication, Certified copy of the judgment in Crl.P.No.2630/1996 quashing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. etc. 11. 10. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 has got himself examined and also examined PWs.2 to 6 and relied upon Exs.P1 to 17 which include the original sale deeds, original WILL, Encumbrance certificates, Newspaper publication, Certified copy of the judgment in Crl.P.No.2630/1996 quashing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. etc. 11. As against the said evidence, defendants No.3 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.131/1997 has got himself examined as DW.1 and examined other two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and relied upon Exhs.D1 to D26 which include copy of the plaint in O.S.No.31/1991, mortgage deed dated 11.02.1942, original gift deed dated 06.05.1960 with a letter, assessment register extract, copies of the order sheet and witness deposition in HRC No.120/82, defendants sale deed copy dated 12.04.1996, copies of Plaint and judgment in O.S.No.64/84, witness deposition copies in O.S.No.1362/1993, Municipal khatha and Assessment Register Extract with endorsement, copy of KEB letter and other papers concerned to FDP 9/1988. The thumb impression register of the year 1989-90 from the Sub-Registrar's office, Davanagere and the original register for registration of documents were marked at Exhs.D18 to 22. 12. The Court below after having recorded the evidence of both the parties and having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the material on record answered issue Nos.1 to 4 of O.S.No.90/1996 in affirmative by coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 has proved his title and proved that the vendor of the plaintiff has acquired the property under the WILL. The Court below has further held that the plaintiff also proved that he was in lawful possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit and there was interference through defendant No.2. Further, the Court below answered issue Nos.5 to 7 as negative by coming to the conclusion that the defendant has not proved issue Nos.5, 6 and 7 and granted the decree by answering issue Nos.1 to 4 framed in O.S.No.131/1997 in the negative and issue No.5 in the affirmative by coming to the conclusion that the defendant has not proved that he is the owner as contended in paragraphs 12(a) to (i) of the written statement and hence decreed the suit in O.S.No.90/1996 in favour of the plaintiff and the suit in O.S.No.131/1997 filed by the defendant is dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 and dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.131/1997, defendant No.3 in O.S.No.90/1996 has preferred these two appeals. RFA No.732/2004 is filed against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.131/1997 and RFA No.733/2004 is filed against the decree passed in O.S.No.90/1996. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant though filed the appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.131/1997 i.e., RFA No.732/2004 submits that he does not press the appeal on the ground that the benami transaction is prohibited under the law and hence he does not want to pursue the said appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument in RFA No.733/2004 vehemently contends that when the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.90/1996, he has sought the relief of declaration and injunction and also in the prayer column he has prayed the Court to make an inventory. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff is not sure about his possession. At page 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has contended that in the year 1993 and earlier to that, due to several litigations in between the joint family members, Smt. Saraswathamma was neglected by her sons and daughters. Hence, she has executed a WILL in favour of her last son B.B. Srinivas in respect of suit schedule property contending that the same is a self acquired property of father of Saraswathamma and it is a Streedhan property and as such she executed a WILL in favour of her son. He further contended that the WILL has not been proved and the witnesses have not spoken that in their presence, WILL has been signed and they have signed later. It is also contended that P.W.2 Commissioner was appointed and he conducted the inventory. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff was not in possession as on the date of filing the suit. Learned counsel would also contend that while answering issue No.4 at page 68 it is mentioned that Executive Magistrate was in possession of the premises and proceedings was initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and possession has not been proved even after the order of High Court. Though possession was not proved, the Court below has committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record. Though possession was not proved, the Court below has committed an error in appreciating the evidence available on record. Even though the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction and in view of the fact that plaintiff has sought the inventory, he ought to have filed the suit for declaration and possession and the same has not been done. Inspite of it, the Court below granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents in his arguments vehemently contended that defendant No.3 in collusion with defendant No.1 had managed to take the assistance of the Police and with the assistance of defendant No.2 i.e., the Police Officer, a case has been registered against the plaintiff and the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the Tahsildar which was quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2630/1996 and the plaintiff was put in possession as directed by this Court. In para 5 of the plaint in O.S.No.131/1997, the plaintiff has admitted that this plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. DW.1 in his evidence and also in the written statement has admitted the possession of plaintiff/respondent and the very admission of the plaintiff in O.S.No.131/1997 takes away the case of the appellant and the Court below considered the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses viz., the grand daughter of Saraswathamma and also the scribe who is an advocate, but nothing is elicited in the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve the very execution of the WILL. Though it is contended that the said WILL is concocted, nothing is proved to that effect. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel would further contend that the original property belongs to one Murugesh Modaliar and he has purchased the property measuring a vacant site 100ft X 40ft and he had constructed house in two portions and enjoyed the same during his life time and he died intestate. His daughter Saraswathamma succeeded to his property. The said Saraswathamma executed the WILL in favour of her last son Srinivas and the said Srinivas in turn sold the property in favour of the plaintiff on 04.12.1995. The plaintiff also examined PWs.2 and 4 as attesting witnesses. P.W.3 who is the scribe, is an advocate. His daughter Saraswathamma succeeded to his property. The said Saraswathamma executed the WILL in favour of her last son Srinivas and the said Srinivas in turn sold the property in favour of the plaintiff on 04.12.1995. The plaintiff also examined PWs.2 and 4 as attesting witnesses. P.W.3 who is the scribe, is an advocate. The contention of the appellant that WILL has not been proved, cannot be accepted and the evidence on of PWs.2 to 4 is consistent. The counsel also contends that the right in respect of Lakshmidevamma has not been proved and established. The partition suit is also filed by the legal heirs of Smt. Saraswathamma and they have not included the suit schedule property in the said suit. Hence, it is clear that the other legal heirs of Smt. Saraswathamma have not disputed the WILL executed by their mother. Having taken note of these materials the Court below rightly decreed the suit in O.S.No.90/1996 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.131/1997. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of learned trial Judge. 16. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the point that arises for consideration is: (i) Whether the Court below has committed an error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.131/1997 by answering issue No.5 in favour of defendant in O.S.No.131/1997 ? (ii) Whether the Court below has committed an error in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.90/1996 answering issue Nos.1 to 4 in affirmative in favour of plaintiff and issue Nos.5 to 7 as against the defendants? POINT NO.1 17. RFA No.732/2004 is filed against O.S.No.131/1997 and plaintiff in O.S.No.131/1997 is claiming the right contending that though the property was purchased in the name of Murugesh Modaliar and the same is a benami transaction and the husband of Saraswathamma late Balakrishna Modaliar purchased the property in the name of Murugesh Modaliar, it is to be noted that the counsel at the time of arguing made it clear that he did not pursue the said appeal, since the very benami transaction is prohibited under law. Hence, I do not intend to discuss the material with regard to O.S.No.131/1997 and the said transaction is prohibited under the law and hence RFA No.732/2004 is liable to be dismissed. Point No.2 18. Hence, I do not intend to discuss the material with regard to O.S.No.131/1997 and the said transaction is prohibited under the law and hence RFA No.732/2004 is liable to be dismissed. Point No.2 18. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and considering the pleadings of both the parties, I would like to make a mention that the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/1996 has claimed the ownership based on the sale deed of the year 1934 which was purchased by Murugesh Modaliar and the fact that Murugesh Modaliar purchased the same is not in dispute. The contention of the defendant that it is only a formal document and Balakrishna Modaliar had purchased the property in the name of Murugesh Modaliar and hence it is the contention of the defendant that it is a benami transaction. When the submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the benami transaction is prohibited, the very contention of the defendant that the property was purchased in the name of Murugesh Modaliar by late Balakrishna Modaliar cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that Murugesh Modaliar passed away and the property devolves upon Saraswathamma. 19. It is the contention of the plaintiff that portion of property was sold during the life time of Smt. Saraswathamma and retained only the suit schedule property. The fact that Smt. Saraswathamma sold the portion of property has not been disputed by the defendant. The defendant in the cross-examination has categorically admitted that portion of the property was sold by Saraswathamma and retained the suit schedule property. Hence, the other circumstance goes against the defendant that he has admitted the portion of the property which was sold out of measurement of 40 X 100 ft. The same has not been questioned. The claim of the plaintiff is that Saraswathamma has executed the WILL in favour of Srinivas in terms of Ex.P2 and the same is a registered document. Further it is important to note that the plaintiff has examined P.W.2 who is none other than the grand daughter of Saraswathamma and she supports the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Saraswathamma executed WILL in favour of her last son Srinivas. Plaintiff also relied upon the evidence of another attesting witnesses P.W.2 and 4 and also examined P.W.3 who is the scribe. Plaintiff also relied upon the evidence of another attesting witnesses P.W.2 and 4 and also examined P.W.3 who is the scribe. The scribe is none other than the Advocate and the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 is consistent about the execution of the WILL. It is pertinent to note that the children of Saraswathamma did not dispute the WILL by filing any suit questioning the same and also not included the suit schedule property in the partition suit filed by them. 20. However, when the defendant has taken the defence that the said WILL was frivolous and created, plaintiff got examined the attesting witnesses viz., P.W.2 and 4 and that in the cross examination of PWs.2 to 4 nothing has been elicited in order to prove that the alleged WILL is frivolous and false. It is further important to note that the plaintiff in paragraph-7 has categorically pleaded that there was litigation in the family and sons and daughters have also filed the suit. The defendants have also got marked the document in respect of the suit filed by the daughters of Smt. Saraswathamma. It is important to note that while filing the suit for partition, the children of Smt. Saraswathamma did not include the suit schedule property as one of the schedule property. Hence, it is clear that the other circumstance goes in favour of the plaintiff and there was no dispute with regard to the execution of the WILL in favour of Srinivas. Therefore the defendant cannot dispute the WILL executed by Smt. Saraswathamma. In the cross examination of P.W.2 though certain answers are elicited with regard to who brought the stamp paper, she admits that she does not know, but she volunteers that her grand mother secured the same from someone else but cannot say at what time she got it. P.W.1 categorically says that the WILL was executed on 23rd. At that time grand mother was aged about 93 years and while executing the WILL, Sri Srinivas, Saraswathamma and one Vijayamalini and Ramachandra were present. It is suggested that her grand mother was not in a position to move and she was bed-ridden and the said suggestion was denied. The specific question was put to P.W.2 that the thumb impression found on the WILL does not belong to Saraswathamma and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that her grand mother was not in a position to move and she was bed-ridden and the said suggestion was denied. The specific question was put to P.W.2 that the thumb impression found on the WILL does not belong to Saraswathamma and the said suggestion was denied. P.W.2 categorically says that first Jahirabi has signed the document and thereafter she has signed the same and then Surendra Kaur and Sri B.Ramappa the scribe has also signed the same. Except these none others have signed the same. 21. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.4 another attesting witness she confirms her signature in Ex.P3 and says that WILL was executed in 1993. In the cross examination of P.W.4 also categorically says that the scribe Ramappa read the contents of the WILL and thereafter they have signed the WILL. She cannot tell the denomination of stamp paper and who brought the same. She claims that the work of completion of WILL was between 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and she signed first and then P.W.2 signed the same. Thereafter Surendra Kaur and the executant has attested her thumb impression. After completion of the signature of all of them, the advocate has signed the same. The evidence of PWs.2 and 4 is consistent with regard to attesting of the signatures by the witnesses and the executant. 22. Having taken note of the evidence of PWs.2 and 4 and also the evidence of P.W.3, who is the scribe also confirms that he prepared the WILL based on the instructions of Smt. Saraswathamma and he also reiterates that he has read the contents of the WILL and executant also got confirmed the contents through her grand daughter. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 are consistent about the execution of the WILL and the trial Judge has considered all these aspects while appreciating the evidence available on record regarding execution of the WILL. Though learned counsel for the appellant in his argument vehemently contends that the very execution of the WILL is doubtful, nothing is on record to disbelieve the evidence to Pws.2 to 4 and I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant to come to the other conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved the very execution of the WILL. Hence I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge while answering Issue No.2 has rightly come to the conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff Sri B.B. Srinivas acquired the title of the suit property under the WILL as contended in the plaint and as a result, the Court below while answering issue No.1 considering the document at Exs.P1 and P2, sale deeds and Ex.P3 Will it is clear that the executant of the WILL succeeded the property from Murugesh Modaliar and as already pointed out, the defendant also did not dispute the fact of selling of half of the portion of the property which was acquired originally by Murugesh Modaliar by Saraswathamma. 23. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings with regard to issue Nos.1 and 2 and also answering issue No.5 that defendant did not prove that property belonged to Balakrishna Modaliar and I have already pointed out that it is the contention of the defendant also that Balakrishna Modaliar purchased the property in the name of Murugesh Modaliar and in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court. Hence, the very execution of the gift deed by the said Balakrishna Modaliar in favour of Lakshmidevamma does not create any right in her favour in the absence of title to the executant of the gift deed. Hence, the trial Judge has rightly answered issue No.5 in the negative. 24. Now the question before the Court is with regard to whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.2 unlawfully closed the door of the property and put his personal lock to the property. In this regard, the records reveal that the plaintiff in the suit in para 9 has categorically stated that Smt. Lakshmidevi Ramachandra has lodged the complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police making the allegation that her brother B.B. Srinivas has obtained a false WILL from her mother and the second defendant who is the Police Officer was influenced by the political pressure of the Circle Inspector to take steps and hence the case was registered in Crime No.254/1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 474 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is also the contention that the plaintiff has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.275/1986 and this Court has granted anticipatory bail. It is also the contention that the plaintiff has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.275/1986 and this Court has granted anticipatory bail. Thereafter the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is questioned before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings. In the said proceedings, this Court directed to put the plaintiff in possession and accordingly he has been in possession. 25. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in O.S.No.131/1997 the defendant herein has admitted the possession of the plaintiff and the learned trial Judge also while appreciating the evidence available on record made the reference with regard to this aspect. While answering issue No.4, the trial Court has referred that defendant No.2-Police Officer was subsequently deleted by the plaintiff and consequent upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2630/1996, a direction was given to handover the possession forthwith to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has proved that defendant No.2 unlawfully closed the door of the property and put his personal lock to the property. Hence it is clear that the plaintiff was in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit consequent upon the execution of the sale deed in his favour and proved the interference by the defendant through the defendant No.2 - Police Officer. 26. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff in the suit also sought the relief to appoint suitable Court Commissioner to make an inventory in respect of the suit schedule property in respect of the movables itself creates a doubt that the plaintiff was not in possession, cannot be accepted. It is the specific plea of the plaintiff that after purchasing of the property from his vendor, he was put in possession. In para 9 and 10 of the plaint, a specific allegation is made that at the instance of Smt. Lakshmidevamma, defendant No.2 Police Inspector who in my opinion unlawfully submitted a report based on which the Taluk Magistrate initiated criminal proceedings and Taluka Magistrate based on the report of the police inspector initiated proceedings under 145 Cr.P.C. and the plaintiff has relied upon the order of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.2630/1996 as per Ex.P9. No doubt the defendant has relied upon several documents particularly Ex.D6 order sheet in respect of HRC No.120/82 and also certified copy of the compromise petition and the statement of Lakshmidevamma as at Exs.D7 and 8 and in support of the case the defendant also examined the witness DW.2. The witness DW.2 in the cross examination though claims that he was a tenant under Lakshmidevamma, he did not produce any document. He categorically admits in the cross examination that he is not having any document to substantiate the same. He categorically admits that he did not see any document of Balakrishna Modaliar to show that he was the owner. In the cross examination also he admits that he does not know why this present suit is filed and Somanath told him to come to Court and give the evidence. The evidence of P.W.3 also will not come to the aid of defendant. 27. Apart from this, though the defendant claims that property was mortgaged and created Gift in favour of Lakshmidevamma, as already pointed out, those documents will not create any right in favour of the defendant. In the cross examination DW.1, he also admits that the Commissioner was appointed and he has drawn the mahazar and given the report. In the said report, the Commissioner has mentioned that certain things which belong to plaintiff and further admits that in terms of the order of this Court, the key was handed over to the plaintiff. In the cross examination, he categorically admits that in Ex.D1 there is a mention how Saraswathamma got the property and also Ex.D1 disclose that Murugesh Modaliar has purchased the property. P.W.1 in his cross examination categorically admits that in Ex.D3 there was no mention that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of Murugesh Modaliar for name sake and further admits that the contents of Ex.D3 are correct. Apart from that, he further admits that in the gift deed Smt. Lakshmidevamma has not signed the same and hence, the suggestion was made that Ex.D4 was created and the same was denied. DW.1 also admits that in Ex.D10 the suit schedule property has not been included. Apart from that, he further admits that in the gift deed Smt. Lakshmidevamma has not signed the same and hence, the suggestion was made that Ex.D4 was created and the same was denied. DW.1 also admits that in Ex.D10 the suit schedule property has not been included. In view of the admission given by the DW1 that possession has been handed over in favour of the plaintiff as per the direction of this Court and after taking note of both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court and also the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and also execution of the WILL and also Exs.P1 and P2 title deeds and also the WILL and the order of this Court directing defendant No.2 to hand over possession in favour of the plaintiff and also the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff which was quashed go to show that plaintiff is the owner of the property as he has been in possession. Hence, I do not find any reasons to come to any other conclusion that the trial Court has committed an error in considering both oral and documentary evidence and to reverse the judgment of the trial Court. 28. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.