JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2009 passed in OS No.28/2007 by the Civil Judge (J.D) and JMFC at Basavakalyan insofar as rejection of suit in respect of Sy.No.37/7 and judgment passed in RA No.276/2010 dated 04.02.2011 by the Dist. Judge Adhoc and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court at Basavakalyan. 2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. The parties would be referred to as they stand in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.37/6 measuring 26 guntas and Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas of Janawad village, Basavakalyan Taluk. The plaintiff in his suit averred that his father Gurpadappa Patil purchased the suit lands from Sidramappa S/o Bapurao and Chidamber S/o Bapurao in the year 1971. After the death of the father, the plaintiff has become owner and is in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that his name was mutated in respect of the suit lands and defendants are illegally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands which made the plaintiff to file suit for permanent injunction. 5. On issuance of suit summons, the defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff’s father has not purchased both suit lands in the year 1971. The further contention of the defendants is that Chidamber and Sidramappa had no right to sell the land bearing Sy.No.37/6. Further it is stated that Tejappa is the father of defendant No.1 and he had three daughters and after the death of Tejappa, defendant No.1 and her sisters became the owners of Sy.No.37/7. It is their main contention that defendant No.1 is cultivating and enjoying the suit land bearing Sy.No.37/7. The sale deed executed by Chidamber and Sidramappa in respect of Sy.No.37/7 is illegal. Before changing the mutation, no notice was issued to the defendants. The defendants also disputed the boundaries of the suit properties and they also denied the interference by them. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over suit lands as on the date of suit? 2. Before changing the mutation, no notice was issued to the defendants. The defendants also disputed the boundaries of the suit properties and they also denied the interference by them. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over suit lands as on the date of suit? 2. Does he proves alleged obstruction of defendants? 3. Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?” 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined one Iranna as PW.2. Documents Exs.P.1 to P.24 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and also examined one witness as DW.2 in support of their case. Documents Exs.D.1 to D.7 were got marked on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court based on the material on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in affirmative i.e., with regard to plaintiff’s lawful possession and with regard to obstruction by the defendants. 7. On analyzing the oral and documentary evidence produced by the respective parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part and rejected the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land bearing Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas. Aggrieved by the said rejection of the suit insofar as Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas, the plaintiff preferred RA No.276/2010. The Appellate Court on examination of the grounds raised by the plaintiff/appellant, insofar as the plaintiff’s appeal in respect of Sy.No.37/7 formulated the following two points for its consideration: “1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the Judgment and the decree passed in O.S.No.28/07 dated 31/1/2009 regarding to dismissal of the suit with respect to suit land Sy.No.37/7 measuring 25 Gts. is erroneous liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the interference of this Court in the Judgment and the decree of the Trial Court so for as regarding its finding on the suit land Sy.No.37/7 measuring 25 Gts. is necessary?” 8. The Appellate Court after hearing both sides and on examination of material on record, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. is necessary?” 8. The Appellate Court after hearing both sides and on examination of material on record, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in OS No.28/2017 insofar as rejection of suit in respect of Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas and judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011 in RA No.276/2010 is before this Court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record and is totally erroneous one. The Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the documents produced by the plaintiff. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding on issue No.1 by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court are erroneous and that the Courts below have failed to take into consideration Ex.P.1 insofar as Sy.No.37/7 is concerned. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents justifies the judgments passed by the Courts below. 11. The suit of the plaintiff is one for permanent injunction. The only question in a suit for permanent injunction is to examine as to who is in lawful possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff has sought injunction in respect of two survey numbers i.e., Sy.No.37/6 measuring 26 guntas and Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas of Janawad Village, Basavakalyan Taluk. In this appeal, the Court is concerned only with Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas as the suit is dismissed insofar as said survey number is concerned. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said land was purchased in the year 1971 by the father of the plaintiff i.e., Gurpadappa Patil from Sidramappa and Chidamber sons of Bapurao. Insofar as Sy.No.37/7 is concerned, it was standing in the name of Tejappa, the father of defendant No.1 since 1956. The plaintiff is not able to explain how the name of Sidramappa and Chidamber appeared subsequently without there being any document to show the valid transfer. The Trial Court on analyzing the evidence both oral and documentary has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction insofar as Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas is concerned. The Trial Court on analyzing the evidence both oral and documentary has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction insofar as Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas is concerned. Except sale deed in respect of Sy.No.37/7 no other documents to indicate the possession of the plaintiff over Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas is produced. As on the date of sale in the year 1971, the name of Tejappa, father of defendant No.1 was appearing in the revenue records. Under what circumstances and based on which document the names of Sidramappa and Chidamber appeared is not at all explained by the plaintiff. 12. The Trial Court on examination of RTC extracts i.e., Exs.D.2, 3, 4 and 7, which are from 1968 to 1983 has noted that Tejappa’s name was entered in respect of Sy.No.37/7, whereas the alleged sale deed has taken place in the year 1971 and the Trial Court has noted that Tejappa’s name was appearing in Sy.No.37/7 right from 1954 to 1986. No document is produced to show transfer of land in Sy.No.37/7 from Tejappa to Sidramappa and Chidamber, which means Tajappa had not sold land in Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas. The Trial Court has given a finding based on the documents that the plaintiff cannot become owner or possessor of the suit land in Sy.No.37/7 without there being any document in support of his ownership. On analyzing the material documents, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the possession of Sy.No.37/7 is still with defendant No.1 only. The Trial has categorically given a finding of fact on the said issue. 13. The Appellate Court also on analyzing the records has noted that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case that he is in possession of the suit land i.e., Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas. The Appellate Court has also noted that Tejappa’s name entered in Sy.No.37/7 even after the alleged sale deed in the year 1971. The Appellate Court has also observed that the title to the suit land in Sy.No.37/7 cannot be held to be transferred and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit land i.e., Sy.No.37/7 measuring 26 guntas. 14. Both the Courts have concurrently given a finding of fact based on the material on record. 14. Both the Courts have concurrently given a finding of fact based on the material on record. This being a Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, only if there is any substantial question of law, the Court would entertain the appeal. The Trial Court based on the material has given a finding of fact regarding the possession of the suit land that too in a suit for injunction. As no question of law would arise in this appeal, the appeal is rejected.