JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 23.09.2014 passed in R.A.No.27 of 2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2014 passed in O.S. No.63 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Banhatti has filed this regular second appeal. 2. The parties are referred with their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The plaintiff-Sahakari Sangh filed the suit bearing O.S.No.63 of 2007 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-State and City Municipal Council, Banhatti in respect of suit property situated in Banhatti D-Forest Sy.No.7 Ward No.1A, municipality property No.2495 measuring East-West 185 feet and North-South 160 feet. 4. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff-Sangha is doing its activity in the suit property for more than 30 years and it is running Weavers Training Centre by constructing permanent structure by getting grant from the Khadi Commission and for the last one year they were running Basaveshwar High School of Walmiki Association and have stored playing materials in the suit property. The suit property is measuring East-West 36 feet and South-North 74 feet along with constructed structure and remaining is open space. On 10.04.2007, agents of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 came to the open space and started cleaning the same and when the Secretary of the plaintiff-Sangha questioned them, they told that they are going to construct the Hostel in the said property. The plaintiff shown the documents of their property, they did not heed for the same. If the defendants construct hostel in the said property, plaintiff will be put to great and irreparable loss and defendants were trying to encroach the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff filed said suit against the defendants. 5. In response to the summons, the defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statements. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have denied the averments made in the plaint. They have denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration same is not maintainable and the plaintiff being Co-operative Society the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. They have denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff is for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration same is not maintainable and the plaintiff being Co-operative Society the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendant No.3 had handed over the suit property to defendant No.2 for construction of B.C.M. Hostel in an area measuring 75 feet X 45 feet with a sketch in Sy.No.7. The defendants have not entered in D-Forest Sy.No.11 at any point of time. As per the Government Order dated 19.03.2005 a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- has been granted for construction of B.C.M. Hostel. The plaintiff with an intention to grab the said property has filed suit, there is no cause of action for the suit and they prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement on the same line as that of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 has stated that the plaintiff-Sangha has no right at all over the suit property nor the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are constructing the B.C.M. Hostel for the poor children of backward classes. The plaintiff has not issued prior notice and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is in no way concerned to the suit property. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties trial Court framed the issues. In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff-Sangha got examined its representative as PW-1 and got marked 17 documents. Defendant No.2 got examined its Assistant Executive Engineer as DW-1 and got marked 19 documents. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. 7. Therefore, the plaintiff-Sangha being aggrieved by the said Judgment filed appeal in R.A. No.27 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The appellate Court secured the lower court records and heard the learned counsels for the parties and passed the impugned Judgment on 23.09.2014 by which the appeal was dismissed with costs. 8. 7. Therefore, the plaintiff-Sangha being aggrieved by the said Judgment filed appeal in R.A. No.27 of 2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. The appellate Court secured the lower court records and heard the learned counsels for the parties and passed the impugned Judgment on 23.09.2014 by which the appeal was dismissed with costs. 8. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by both the Courts below has filed this regular second appeal on the ground that the Courts below have passed the Judgments without considering the documents which shows that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and prayed for decreeing the suit. The defendants are also not the owners of the suit property to construct the Hostel thereon. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction ought to have been granted by the Courts below. 9. Heard the learned counsels for the appellant and respondents on admission. 10. At this stage of admission, the appellant has to make out that there is a substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the plaintiff Sangha is in possession of the suit property by encroachment and that it cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. The documents produced by the plaintiff show that the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants restraining them from interfering its possession. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts below are not justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish its possession over the suit property. 12. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that absolutely there is no material to prove that the plaintiff-Sangha is in possession of the suit property and both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in this regard and that there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal. 13. The plaintiff-Sangha has contended that it is in possession of the suit property, which is open space situated infront of the school building by encroachment and that the plaintiff-Sangha is running Weavers Training Centre in the said building and it has stored sports materials in the suit open space, this aspect was not proved before the trial Court. 13. The plaintiff-Sangha has contended that it is in possession of the suit property, which is open space situated infront of the school building by encroachment and that the plaintiff-Sangha is running Weavers Training Centre in the said building and it has stored sports materials in the suit open space, this aspect was not proved before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant-Sangha relying on the photographs produced before the trial Court submitted that the plaintiff-Sangha is running the school in the building shown in the photographs and the suit property is open space situated infront of the school building and that there is no road or passage between the school building and the open space as contended by the defendants. On going through the photographs produced at Ex.P-3 to 8, it is found that there is open space infront of the school. Ex.D.-3 is the approved plan for the construction of the proposed B.C.M. Hostel. In this plan the school run by the plaintiff-Sangha is shown and site for proposed B.C.M. Hostel is shown and in between road is shown. This is a public document, therefore, the contention of the appellant-Sangha that the area shown as road is the suit property and it is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property cannot be accepted. 14. Both the Courts below have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded the concurrent finding that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove its possession over the suit property much less lawful possession. Even, according to the plaintiff, it is not in lawful possession of the property, but is in possession of the property by encroachment. Therefore, the suit property belongs to the defendant No.1-State is also not disputed. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the appellant has not made out any substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal. The Judgments and Decrees passed by the Courts below cannot be held as perverse or against the material on record. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal pending applications, if any stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration.