JUDGMENT : This Regular Second Appeal is by the defendants in O.S.No.227/2004 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Dharwad and in respondents in R.A.No.33/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property not to evict him without due course of law. Plaintiff’s grievance is that the subject matter of suit property bearing CTS No.332A of Manikilla, Dharwad was rented out by the defendants’ father to the plaintiff’s father for the purpose of running a motor garage. Plaintiff’s contention is that Hanumantrao Sanglikar who was the owner of the suit property, i.e., father of the defendants rented the suit property to the plaintiff’s father Mohammed Hussain Kaladagi and Mohammad Hussain Kaladagi erected a temporary structure for the purpose of running a motor garage under the name and style “Modern Garage” on rental basis of Rs.5/-and it was enhanced from time to time up to Rs.100/-. The defendants have not issued any receipt. 4. The defendants contended that, there was no such transaction relating to rent out of the suit property bearing CTS No.332A measuring 100 feet East-West, 50 feet North-South. No documents are available so as to contend that there was a rental agreement between the then Hanumantrao Sanglikar and Mohammed Hussain Kaladagi. It was contended that Mohammed Hussain Kaladagi and their family members were residing adjacent to the property bearing CTS No.332A of Manikilla Dharwad and they were evicted by the Maratha Mandal in the year 2004. Thereafter, they have encroached upon certain portion of CTS No.332A, due to which, defendants have approached the police by making complaint. After seriousness of such complaint by the defendants, plaintiff presented the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants. The trial Court framed following issues: i) Whether plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of suit schedule property since his father period by running a motor garage by erecting a temporary structure which being abutting to his residential house? (ii) Whether plaintiff proves the description of suit schedule property? The trial Court framed following issues: i) Whether plaintiff proves that he has been in possession of suit schedule property since his father period by running a motor garage by erecting a temporary structure which being abutting to his residential house? (ii) Whether plaintiff proves the description of suit schedule property? (iii) Whether defendants prove that the plaintiff encroached in their property bearing CTS No.332A by extending their temporary structure unauthorisedly which was shown as ABCD in hand sketch. (iv) Whether plaintiff further proves that, he has been paying rent to the suit schedule property as contended? (v) Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference over suit schedule property as contended? (vi) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for? (vii) Whether defendant No.4 is entitled to the relief of counter claim as sought for? (viii) What order or decree?” 5. The trial Court answering issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 in the negative and issue Nos.3 and 7 in the affirmative proceeded to dismiss the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.33/2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dhawad, which was decided on 18.11.2011, in which decision, the judgment rendered by the trial Court was reversed, while allowing the appeal. Thus, the present appeal is filed by the defendants seeking setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in R.A.No.33/2009. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the plaintiff was on rental basis on the portion of the property bearing C.T.S.No.332A of Manikilla, Dharwad. The appellate Court proceeded to allow the appeal only on the statement of the DW-1 in the absence of any document. Thus, the appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, appellate Court has elaborately considered the statement of DW-1, wherein, he has admitted that father of the defendants had transaction with father of the plaintiff and they were carrying on motor garage business. Therefore, statement of DW-1 is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was on rental basis of the suit schedule property and he was carrying on motor garage business. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the appellate Court judgment. Hence, defendants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the appellate Court order. Therefore, statement of DW-1 is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was on rental basis of the suit schedule property and he was carrying on motor garage business. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the appellate Court judgment. Hence, defendants have not made out a case so as to interfere with the appellate Court order. 8. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, for the purpose of relief sought for by the plaintiff to the extent of permanent injunction and restraining the defendants, the substantial question of law has not been formulated so as to appreciate in the regular second appeal. 10. Question for consideration would be, whether plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property on rental basis so as to seek permanent injunction and restraining the defendants. 11. Perusal of the entire records go to show that, not even single documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the plaintiff’s contention that there was a rental agreement between Hanamantrao Sanglikar and Mohammad Hussain Kaladagi. Neither the rental agreement nor the receipt of rent or corroborative evidence have been produced to support the root of the matter that there was a rental agreement between father of the plaintiff and defendants’ father namely Hanamantrao Sanglikar and Mohammadhussain Kaladagi. Plaintiff could have adduced evidence in and around persons of the suit property, which is not done. Therefore, plaintiff version is not believable In the absence of relevant document, the appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the trial Court judgment. The contention of the defendants points for consideration by the appellate Court and so also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.4-D.W.1 in his examination in chief he has stated that there was a rental agreement/understanding of lending the suit schedule property by the father of the defendants to the father of the plaintiff. No doubt, in the cross-examination, DW-1 has stated so, at the same time, it has not been corroborated by any documentary or oral evidence. Therefore, appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the regular appeal in R.A.No.33/2009. 12. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree dated 18.11.2011 passed in R.A.No.33/2009 is set aside while confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.227/ 2004.