JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant–plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) in R.A.No.48/2010 (old No.12/2010) by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent defendant and setting aside the decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Channagiri (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in O.S.No.92/2002, dated 26.11.2009. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 3. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction claiming that he had purchased the suit schedule property bearing survey No.281/3 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Thyvanagi village, BasavapatnaII Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davangere District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) in public auction held by the Revenue Department for recovery of the Land Revenue arrears in the year 1962-1963. In furtherance of the auction sale, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property and he is in continuous undisturbed position as absolute owner and mutation also transferred in his name and contended that the suit property was included in Sarkari Pada (as Government Land) for arrears of land revenue and the plaintiff paid the entire revenue with penalty and restored the schedule property on 29.12.1999. Mutation also effected in his favour. The defendant’s father Hiriyappa filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘KLR Act’) for granting occupancy right and the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The same was not challenged. Subsequently, the defendant also filed Form No.7(a) under KLR Act for the same schedule property which was also rejected. The defendant challenged the order of rejection before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAT’). The appeal also dismissed. The same has attained finality. In the meantime, the defendant obtained an order from Tahsildar to protect the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff challenged the order of Tahsildar by filing Writ Petition No.24472/2000. The same was dismissed. However, the plaintiff filed Writ Appeal No.5151/2001, which came to be allowed and the order of Tahsildar was set aside. The defendant along with his supporters attempted to destroy the crops in the schedule property on 21.04.2002. The plaintiff challenged the order of Tahsildar by filing Writ Petition No.24472/2000. The same was dismissed. However, the plaintiff filed Writ Appeal No.5151/2001, which came to be allowed and the order of Tahsildar was set aside. The defendant along with his supporters attempted to destroy the crops in the schedule property on 21.04.2002. Hence, filed a suit for restraining the defendant from interfering the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. 5. In pursuant to the notice, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint as false and contended that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has taken over the possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the father of the defendant was in possession and cultivation of the land even earlier to the alleged auction purchase by the plaintiff. The application of his father has been dismissed on the ground that the property belongs to the Government. However, the names of the father and mother of the defendant found place in the cultivators’ column in the RTC. Thereafter, the name of the defendant continued in the RTC. Initially, the ancestors of the defendant and also the defendant himself were in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled for permanent injunction. There is no cause of action to file a suit and hence, prayed for dismissing the suit. 6. On the above rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues. “1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of institution of the suit? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant has interfered with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitle to the relief sought for in the plaint? 4. What order or decree?” 7. To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked sixteen documents and on behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 and also got examined five witnesses as DWs.2 to 6 and also got marked sixteen documents (the evidence of DW.4 has been discarded by the trial Court). To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked sixteen documents and on behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as DW.1 and also got examined five witnesses as DWs.2 to 6 and also got marked sixteen documents (the evidence of DW.4 has been discarded by the trial Court). After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit by restraining the defendant from causing interference over the suit schedule property. Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which came to be allowed and reversed the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Assailing the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of second appeal. 8. This Court admitted the appeal on 08.01.2014 to consider the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court on Issue Nos.1 to 4 in O.S.No.92/2002 when admittedly defendant and his father have failed to establish their possession and cultivation as tenants under Form Nos.7 and 7A in the proceedings commencing before the Land Tribunal till the proceedings in W.P.No.2551/2003?” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the First Appellate Court has committed error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by reversing the judgment of the trial Court as the suit schedule property was in possession of the plaintiff and their family. The plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property by auction sale. The defendant’s father filed Form No.7 for granting occupancy right which came to be dismissed. The same was not challenged by the father of the defendant which has attained finality. Subsequently, the defendant filed another application under Form No.7(a) granting occupancy right which also came to be dismissed. An appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal also came to be dismissed. Such being the case, the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment is not correct. The plaintiff being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the mutation also effected in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. An appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal also came to be dismissed. Such being the case, the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment is not correct. The plaintiff being in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the mutation also effected in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction is not a declaratory suit. The defendant’s father was cultivating the land prior to the alleged auction sale from one Kallappa. Thereafter, Form No.7 and 7(a) filed by the defendant’s father and defendant respectively came to be rejected only on the ground that the suit schedule property was a Government Land and nowhere it was mentioned as the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. Even, if the plaintiff claim ownership by way of auction sale, the sale certificate was not produced and possession of the property was not delivered in accordance with law. Absolutely, no document is produced by the plaintiff to show that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Merely, a khatha was transferred under Ex.P16, that itself is not sufficient to show that possession has been taken over from the defendant and handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant continuously claimed that he is in possession and cultivation of the land since long as a tenant. Once the possession has been disputed by the defendant, the plaintiff ought to have converted the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. Therefore, the bare injunction suit is not maintainable. The further contention is that the possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant was interfered by the plaintiff and Police protection was also obtained. Thereafter, it was set aside by this Court in the Writ Appeal, but title dispute has not been discussed which clearly shows that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 11. As regards the substantial question of law framed by this Court and upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records which would go to show that especially Ex.P16Mutation Register extract reveals that the plaintiff has paid Rs.43,482/towards arrears of land revenue and thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue record as the owner from 29.12.1999. 11. As regards the substantial question of law framed by this Court and upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records which would go to show that especially Ex.P16Mutation Register extract reveals that the plaintiff has paid Rs.43,482/towards arrears of land revenue and thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue record as the owner from 29.12.1999. From this document, it can be presumed that the plaintiff was the actual purchaser of the suit schedule property in the year 1962-1963. But, prior to 1999, i.e., 1990-1991, the M.R.No.36 another mutation Register produced as per Ex.P1 shows that the land has been forfeited by the Government for recovery of arrears of land revenue for Rs.42,319/. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any sale certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities for having purchased the suit schedule property under public auction and he has also not produced any document to show that the auction price or any upset price has been deposited to the Government after the purchase of the property by him under the public auction. The documents Ex.P1 M.R.Register and Ex.P16, another M.R.Register were produced subsequent to the year 1990 and 1999 to show that the land has been forfeited and has been restored in the name of the plaintiff after receiving the arrears of land revenue only on 18.11.1999 as per Ex.P11. On perusal of these documents, of course the plaintiff has not produced any title document in respect of purchasing the land by auction sale from the Government. Even otherwise, if he has purchased the land in the year 1962-1963, there is no RTC produced to show that his name was entered as an auction purchaser till 1999, wherein the mutation has been transferred after making payment of arrears of land revenue in 1999. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted the plaintiff as owner and shown the name of the plaintiff as respondent in the revenue proceedings for granting of occupancy right by filing Form No.7 and Form No.7(a). Such being the case, the question of proving the title does not arise. 12. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted the plaintiff as owner and shown the name of the plaintiff as respondent in the revenue proceedings for granting of occupancy right by filing Form No.7 and Form No.7(a). Such being the case, the question of proving the title does not arise. 12. On perusal of Ex.P2, the order passed by the land Tribunal under Land Reforms Act, 1961, where the father of defendant Hiriyappa filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form No.7, wherein he has shown the plaintiff’s name as respondent which came to be dismissed. Ex.P2 is the order of Land Tribunal which is not in dispute. Ex.P4 is the order passed by the Land Tribunal which came to be rejected wherein the defendant herein filed a similar application under Section 77A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act by filing Form No.7(a), the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 15.01.2002. Thereafter, the defendant challenged the order of Land Tribunal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.71/2002 which also came to be dismissed as per Ex.P5. Thereafter, the defendant has not chosen to challenge the order of dismissal of the application for granting occupancy right which attained the finality. 13. However, as held above, the defendant and his father were shown the name of the plaintiff as respondent which amounts to admitting that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he got mutated his name in the revenue record till 1999 and as per Ex.P15, the name of the plaintiff entered in the RTC only from the year 2003-2004 based upon Ex.P16the mutation order. This goes to show that the plaintiff though said to have purchased the land in question in the year 1962-1963 but he has not produced any receipt for payment of the sale consideration and issuance of saguvali chit or handing over the possession by the Government in pursuant to the sale made in the year 1962-1963. But the arrears of land revenue paid by plaintiff in 1999 and thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue record from the year 2003-2004 onwards which shows that the possession of the land has not been transferred to the plaintiff. But the arrears of land revenue paid by plaintiff in 1999 and thereafter, his name was entered in the revenue record from the year 2003-2004 onwards which shows that the possession of the land has not been transferred to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the evidence of the defendant and Ex.D1, the record of rights (ROR) shows the name of Kallappa as the owner of the land till 1963-1964 and thereafter, as per Ex.D2, the record of rights shows the name of Hiriyappa, the father of the defendant as cultivator in the year 1975-1976, 1976-1977. Ex.D3 shows from 1975-1976 to 1978-1979. Ex.D4RTC shows from 1979-1980 till 1983, the name of Hiriyappa, the father of the defendant shown as cultivator in column No.12. Though, the name of the plaintiff was shown as the owner in Exs.D3 and D4 at column No.9, but the name of the defendant’s father is shown as cultivator. Admittedly, in the year 1991, Ex.D5RTC shows that the Government is the owner of the land. Ex.D6RTC upto 1999 shown as Government land (Sarkari Pada). Exs.D7, D8, D9 and D10 are all the tax paid receipts during the year 1994-1995, 1957-1958, 1959-1960. The name of Kallappa is shown as the owner and the defendant has paid the taxes under Exs.D8 to 10 from 1992, 1994 and 2001. These documents go to show that the defendant and his father Hiriyappa were in the actual possession and cultivation of the land in question though the land was purchased by the plaintiff. These documents were not disputed by the plaintiff and also he has not produced and marked any document to show that the actual possession was handed over to him either in the year 1962-1963 or in the year 1999 after changing the mutation in his name after paying the arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property form 1962-1963 is not acceptable. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property form 1962-1963 is not acceptable. Even otherwise Exs.P2 and P4, the orders passed by the Land Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the father of the defendant in Form No.7 in 1974-1975 and subsequently, the defendant filed an application in Form No.7(a) in the year 1998-1999 the occupancy rights sought by them were rejected only on the ground that the land was Government land (Sarkari Pada), therefore, no occupancy right has been granted, but the applications were rejected not on the ground that the defendant’s father or defendant were not cultivating the land. As per the contention of the defendant, the land in question belongs to Kallappa that reveals from the RTCs prior to 1962-1963 and thereafter, though the Government forfeited the land, but, even though the defendant’s father was continued to be cultivating the Government land and though he failed getting the occupancy right and subsequently, the defendant also filed similar application for granting the occupancy right which was dismissed in the year 1999 as per Ex.P4. The fact remains that the defendant is in actual and physical possession and cultivating the land even prior to 1962-1963 subsequent to the selling of land to the plaintiff and even after forfeiting the land by the Government in 1990 and later, restored the ownership of plaintiff in 1999. Even subsequent to the 1999, the defendant is in possession of the land in question. Such being the case, once the defendant disputed the possession over the property by the plaintiff as on the date of filing the suit, the option available to the plaintiff to seek declaration and to recover the possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. The bare injunction suit is not maintainable. In this regard, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the defendant in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2692 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 21 as under: “12. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal: (i) What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property? reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2692 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 21 as under: “12. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal: (i) What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property? (ii) Whether on the facts, the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction ? (iii) Whether the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, could examine the factual question of title which was not the subject-matter of any issue and based on a finding thereon, reverse the decision of the first appellate court? (iv) What is the appropriate decision? Re : Question (i) : 13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.” “21. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.” “21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.” 14. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) at paragraph Nos.13.2 and 13.3, the plaintiff is required to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and recovery of possession, but the plaintiff has not chosen to file or convert the suit for declaration and recovery of possession by making an amendment as it is well settled by the Apex Court in the above judgment. The plaintiff while filing the suit for injunction, he must establish that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and when defendant denies the possession, the only option for the plaintiff is to seek relief for recovery of possession from the defendant. Here in this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in actual possession of the suit schedule property and he was cultivating the land. On the other hand, the defendant is successful in proving that he is in possession and cultivating the land continuously from 1954 onwards till the date of filing of the suit. Here in this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in actual possession of the suit schedule property and he was cultivating the land. On the other hand, the defendant is successful in proving that he is in possession and cultivating the land continuously from 1954 onwards till the date of filing of the suit. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 , wherein it has held: “(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.114(g), S.103 – A party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholding it – Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him – Party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it.” Herein this case, the plaintiff who filed the suit for injunction is required to prove his possession over the suit schedule property when the defendant is able to show that he is in possession not as a lawful owner but previously he was cultivating the land as a tenant from Kallappa prior to 1962. Thereafter, the land has been forfeited by the Government for the recovery of arrears of revenue and it was sold in public auction in 1962. But, no title and possession were transferred to the plaintiff by showing his name in the revenue records from 1962 to 1999 and as per RTC of the plaintiff, his name was entered in the RTC only in the year 2002-2003 as per Ex.P16. Therefore, merely the defendant lost the case to prove himself and his father were the tenant under Kallappa and in view of changing the name of the ownership as Government after 1962 onwards till 1999, but the cultivation of the land by the defendant even without authorization establishes the possession over the suit schedule property by the defendant. Therefore, merely the defendant failed to establish himself as tenant including his father in the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, that itself is not a ground to accept that the defendant is not in actual possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, it is found that the defendant is in the possession. 16. Therefore, merely the defendant failed to establish himself as tenant including his father in the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, that itself is not a ground to accept that the defendant is not in actual possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, it is found that the defendant is in the possession. 16. Therefore, as held above, without seeking relief of declaration, recovery of possession from the defendant and a bare suit for injunction is not maintainable, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar (supra). Therefore, the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal filed by the defendant. I do not find any illegality in the judgment of the First Appellate Court which call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of the defendant. In view of the above said findings, the second appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the second appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed.