JUDGMENT : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 63/2003 on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent findings of both the courts below in dismissing his suit for permanent injunction. 2. Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under: The case of the plaintiff in the court below is that he is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy. No. 132/8 of Melekalahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas. According to him, the said property was purchased by his father in the year 1944 under a registered sale deed, which is at Ex.P1. Thereafter, he would state that said property is mutated to his name vide Form No. 12 issued under Rule 46 on 25.8.2006, which is at Ex.P3. Based on which he is claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property as legal representative of original owner Sri. Venkatappa. 3. According to plaintiff, the suit schedule property consists of a house along with a stone grinder for extracting Honge and Neem oil. Besides that said land has coconut trees in its periphery which are in his possession and enjoyment. It is also stated that there is a shed in the said property where he has been storing Neem and Honge seeds for extraction of oil. According to him, the suit property which is an agricultural land is bounded on East by Gramthana (village), West by A.K. Colony, North by Land of Krishnamurthy and others and South by Land of Doddarangaiah. It is stated that when he was in possession of the property in the aforesaid manner there was a threat by defendants 4 and 5 to trespass into a portion of his property with the assistance of 3rd defendant Shivaram, Bill Collector of Grama Panchayat, Peddanahalli. It is in this background that he has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat and Grama Panchayat of Peddanahalli, by its Secretary, also against the Bill Collector of said Grama Panchayat. Besides these three official defendants, the other private parties namely, Jayalakshmamma and Siddalingaiah are also arrayed as defendants on the premises that they are also trying to encroach into his property. 4. Besides these three official defendants, the other private parties namely, Jayalakshmamma and Siddalingaiah are also arrayed as defendants on the premises that they are also trying to encroach into his property. 4. In the said suit, on service of summons the defendants entered appearance, on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, 2nd defendant filed his written statement, wherein he would state that averments made in the plaint are false and that the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 132/8 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas is not in existence as agricultural land. It is also stated that the said land is acquired by the Assistant Commissioner of Tumakuru District by his order dated 24.5.1955 bearing No. A2-LA 51/54-55 and Memo dated 28.6.1955 bearing No. P.B.437/53-54 for the purpose of forming sites thereon and to distribute the same to houseless persons of the village. It is specifically stated by him that sites formed therein are already distributed to the beneficiaries and beneficiaries are in possession and enjoyment of the same, which are allotted in their favour. A specific defence is also raised to the effect that several constructions have also come up in the said property and in the houses constructed, the persons who are allotted the sites are residing. It is further stated by him that the suit land has lost the characteristic of survey number since it is converted into Gramthana sites, that the Panchayat is collecting tax and the same is being paid by the beneficiaries, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the said suit land. It is also stated that the suit property now being called as A.K. Colony. 5. Besides defendants 1 to 3, defendants 4 and 5 have also filed their written statement. Their statement is similar to that of defendants 1 to 3. However, when it comes to their defence, they would contend that they are allottees of sites formed in the aforesaid land, which are allotted to each one of them. When it comes to 5th defendant though it is stated that he is in possession of a site allotted in his favour, he does not give the number and also dimension but, he would state that site is situated within A.K. Colony, which is referred to as suit schedule land. When it comes to 5th defendant though it is stated that he is in possession of a site allotted in his favour, he does not give the number and also dimension but, he would state that site is situated within A.K. Colony, which is referred to as suit schedule land. However, 4th defendant in her written statement would give boundaries of the site which is allotted in her favour indicating that in the entire land sites are formed, that sites are allotted to different persons and the site which is allotted in her favour is bounded on East by house of Chikkarangaiah, West by Road, North by vacant site of Panchayat and South by House of Rangaiah S/o Buddaiah. 6. With the aforesaid pleadings, the court below proceeded to frame following three issues: "1. Whether plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves the illegal obstruction by the defendants? 3. What order or decree." 7. Thereafter, the court below called upon the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective case. So far as plaintiff is concerned, he examined himself as PW-1 and examined one Sri. Basavaraju as PW-2 and relied upon 5 documents which are at Exs.P1 to P5. Admittedly Ex.P1 is the sale deed which is executed in favour of his father in the year 1944 under which the suit schedule property was purchased by him. Ex.P2 is Pahani of the said property. Ex.P3 is change of katha in Form No. 12. Ex.P4 is Pahani in the name of plaintiff and Ex.P5 is tax paid receipt of the year 2006 i.e. subsequent to filing of the suit. 8. On behalf of defendants, Secretary of the Panchayat 2nd defendant was examined as DW-1. 5th defendant was examined as DW-2. The brother of 4th defendant was examined as DW-3 and DW-4 is the friend of DW-3 and a person known to 4th defendant. In support of their case, the defendants have produced and marked in all 16 documents as Exs.D1 to D16. 9. 5th defendant was examined as DW-2. The brother of 4th defendant was examined as DW-3 and DW-4 is the friend of DW-3 and a person known to 4th defendant. In support of their case, the defendants have produced and marked in all 16 documents as Exs.D1 to D16. 9. Sum and substance of the evidence of plaintiff is similar to one which is pleaded in the plaint, wherein he would try to assert that the suit schedule land is still in his possession and he got katha of the said property transferred to his name vide Ex.P3 in the year 2005, thereafter paid tax to said property in the year 2006, that he continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the same even after filing of the suit for permanent injunction against defendants and others, who have forcibly took possession of some portion of the suit land. However, when PWs. 1 and 2 were put to cross-examination there are certain admissions with reference to attempt of others to take over portion of the property which is said to have been throttled by the plaintiff. The evidence of defendants 1 to 4 is also similar to the defence which is taken by them in their written statement. 10. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties with the documents available on record the trial Court proceeded to answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, consequently decline to entertain the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of injunction, accordingly, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 13.1.2012, which was taken up in appeal before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Gubbi, in RA. No. 9/2012. In the said appeal the lower appellate court on appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and finding on issues 1 to 3 in the trial Court framed 3 points for consideration. First one of which is, whether the plaintiff established his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Second one is whether the judgment and decree dated 13.1.2012 in O.S. No. 63/2003 requires interference and third one is what order or decree. On re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the lower appellate court proceeded to answer both the points in negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the original suit. As against the said concurrent finding, this second appeal is filed. 11. On re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the lower appellate court proceeded to answer both the points in negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the original suit. As against the said concurrent finding, this second appeal is filed. 11. When this matter had come up for admission, this Court secured the entire trial court record before taking up this matter for admission. Thereafter, heard Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the appellant, perused the judgments impugned as well as the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal does not merit admission for the following reasons. Admittedly, the suit schedule property is land bearing Sy. No. 132/8 said to be measuring 1 acres 8 guntas situated at Melekalahalli village of Gubbi Taluk. It is also not in dispute by any of the parties that said land was purchased by the father of plaintiff Sri. Venkatappa. The sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff's father would indicate that said property was acquired by him in the year 1944 and that the same was registered in his name in the revenue records. 12. Though it is stated that the plaintiff's father died in the year 1985, katha of the land is not changed to the name of plaintiff until 2005. It is even before the land being registered in the name of plaintiff as the legal heir of deceased Venkatappa, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 63/2003 contending that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which according to him is an agricultural land. However, he would also state that said land is not in cultivable condition as such, in a portion of that he has put up a house and in remaining portion he has set up a stone grinder for grinding Neem and Honge seeds for extraction of oil and he has also built a shed to store Neem and Honge seeds. Besides that he would also state that there are coconut trees yielding fruits which are in his possession and enjoyment and that defendants 4 and 5 with the assistance of 3rd defendant Bill Collector of Gram Panchayat are trying to create records to take over a portion of the land belonging to him. Besides that he would also state that there are coconut trees yielding fruits which are in his possession and enjoyment and that defendants 4 and 5 with the assistance of 3rd defendant Bill Collector of Gram Panchayat are trying to create records to take over a portion of the land belonging to him. It is in this background that the suit is filed. 13. However, in the defence raised on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, officials of Gram Panchayat and private defendants 4 and 5 who are claiming themselves to be allottees of sites formed in the suit schedule land as houseless persons, they would bring to the notice of the trial court that the entire suit schedule land was subject matter of acquisition by the Assistant Commissioner of Tumakuru, in the year 1955 and as such, said land was taken over by the Government for the purpose of formation of a layout and to allot the sites formed therein to houseless persons. In that behalf, 2nd defendant who was examined as DW-1 would place before the trial Court two registers of tax demand maintained by the Panchayat as Exs.D1 and D2 to demonstrate that the persons who are allotted sites in suit schedule land are paying tax to Gram Panchayat, that the land has lost the characteristic of agricultural land and sites have come up on that. Ex.D3 is extract of the meeting of Gram Panchayat dated 7.3.2003 which would indicate the decision taken regarding allotment of site to one Smt. Yashodamma W/o Siddalingaiah, bearing site No. 90 measuring 30x30 feet in the suit schedule land. Ex.D4 is Pahani of the year 2004-2005. The tax demand extracts in the name of one Smt. Jayalakshmamma for the years 2002- 2003, 1988-1989, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 are marked as Exs.D5 to D8. Several other tax paid receipts are also produced by defendants 1 to 3 at Exs.D9 to D13. Out of that, the document which prompted the trial court to accept that suit schedule land is not in existence is pahani extract of the years 1975-76 to 1980-81, which is at Ex.D13, wherein in the column meant for the person in occupation of the property, it is shown as Gramtana as against the name of plaintiff's father i.e., Venkatappa bin Yalakappa, which is column No. 9. 14. 14. Another document that is relied upon by the trial court is Ex.D14, which is index of land, where at item No. 437 there is reference to acquisition of suit land on 4.5.1955 by the Assistant Commissioner of Tumakuru. Besides this, there are several other documents. Out of that one another important document on which the trial court relied upon is Ex.D16, which is an application given by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant, wherein he would categorically admit that land bearing Sy. No. 132/8 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas is acquired for the purpose of formation of sites, out of that he is also given sites in said layout bearing Nos.24 and 25, in which he would state that 4 coconut trees are in existence which are in his enjoyment, for which he would request for necessary document to be issued in his favour. The said letter is dated 29.1.2003 i.e., immediately prior to filing of the suit in O.S. No. 63/2003 the letter is given by the plaintiff's father to the authorities. It is seen that after submitting the letter in aforesaid manner on 29.1.2003, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 63/2003 on 10.3.2003. 15. The trial court on going through the documents marked on behalf of defendants, some of which are comparable to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, wherein at column No. 12 the existence of A.K. Colony being shown is taken note of by the trial court and would observe that inspite of coming to know that there is existence of A.K. Colony in the documents which are relied upon by the plaintiff himself, he has not chosen to challenge the same instead, he has come before the Court as if he is in possession of the suit schedule property. However, said finding of the trial court is tried to be assailed in this proceedings by stating that the plaintiff has already initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the same and the said proceedings is pending consideration. In fact such an argument was also made in the trial court, however, no documents are produced to that effect and no oral evidence is forthcoming in that behalf. Be that as it may. 16. In fact such an argument was also made in the trial court, however, no documents are produced to that effect and no oral evidence is forthcoming in that behalf. Be that as it may. 16. First and foremost thing that is required to be seen in a suit for permanent injunction is possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the plaintiff and threat of dispossession or trespass by the defendants in the suit. In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession, per contra, there are several documents to show that third party interest is already created in respect of suit property in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and various other persons as could be seen in Exs.D1 and D2, the tax demand register and said fact is further fortified by the application which is submitted by the plaintiff himself to the authorities on 29.1.2003, which is marked by the 2nd defendant at Ex.D16. In the presence of said documents, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established his possession of suit schedule property and also the suit schedule property continuing as agricultural land as on the date when he filed the suit on 10.3.2003. This Court would further observe that immediately prior to filing of the suit the plaintiff has approached the authorities to identify the sites that are allotted to him in the layout formed on suit schedule land bearing Nos. 24 and 25. It is thereafter that he has filed the present suit contending that the entire suit property is in his possession. 17. It is further seen that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff has made all attempts to get katha of the suit schedule property transferred to his name as could be seen in Ex.P3, which is admittedly issued in his name on 22.10.2005 i.e. 2½ years after the present suit is filed. In support of his case, he would rely upon only one tax paid receipt to show that he is in possession of the property and paying tax, which is dated 20.7.2007. Besides these two documents he would also rely upon pahani, which is issued in his name subsequent to katha being transferred in his name. In support of his case, he would rely upon only one tax paid receipt to show that he is in possession of the property and paying tax, which is dated 20.7.2007. Besides these two documents he would also rely upon pahani, which is issued in his name subsequent to katha being transferred in his name. When said pahani is looked into with reference to another pahani which is produced by the very same plaintiff which is at Ex.P2, the pahani at Ex.P2 would indicate that at column No. 12 it is only A.K. Colony which is in existence as on 2001-2002, whereas Ex.P4 which is the pahani issued subsequent to transfer of katha in his name would indicate that as on 2005-2006 the plaintiff is also in possession of the suit schedule property along with A.K. Colony. This speaks volume about the conduct of parties, not only the plaintiff but also revenue officials, mainly the officials of defendants 1 and 2. 18. At this juncture, this Court would take a pause and refer to the manner in which 2nd defendant Secretary of Gram Panchayat has given his evidence as DW-1. When the same is looked into with reference to his defence in the form of written statement, this Court is highly doubtful whether he is trying to defend the interest of defendants 1 and 2 or he is trying to support the case of the plaintiff. Indeed, while tendering evidence as DW-1 he has deliberately given certain admissions as if he is admitting possession of the plaintiff with reference to suit land in one breath simultaneously, he would state that suit property is not in existence as agricultural land and it has already been formed into a layout where sites are allotted to various other people. When this is looked into, the manner in which officials play havoc in the life of litigants against the interest of State, is clearly seen. 19. However, the learned trial judge was intelligent enough to see the trick played by DW-1. He was able to separate the chaff from grain in the evidence of DW-1 thereafter, has rightly assessed the evidence available on record and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, which is rightly accepted by the lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. He was able to separate the chaff from grain in the evidence of DW-1 thereafter, has rightly assessed the evidence available on record and proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, which is rightly accepted by the lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. As against the well reasoned concurrent finding of both the courts below this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to admit this second appeal in as much as no substantial question of law arises for consideration as against the concurrent finding of both the courts below with reference to the suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant herein. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.