JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Savanur in O.S. No.62 of 2004 confirmed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, in R.A. No.67 of 2009 on 21.07.2011. 2. The claim of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and in actual possession and enjoyment of the Teggihalli Gram Panchayat property No.81 of ward No.1. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants have no manner of right or whatsoever over the tamarind trees or the residential and back yard property of the plaintiff and that they are trying to construct a wall and trying to remove the tamarind trees and the action of the defendants cannot be resisted without the aid of the Court. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for injunction. 3. On service of summons, the defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. They further contended that they have never encroached into the plaintiff’s property and the plaintiff has filed a false suit. They further contended that they are the members of Bhajana Mandal of Sri. Matangi temple and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that two tamarind trees were standing in his backyard? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have tried to cut said tamarind trees and to put up compound on his backyard? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that description of suit property is true and correct? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? 5. What order and decree? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On the other hand, defendant No.3 was examined as DW-1 and also examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-6. During the pendency of the suit, Court Commissioner was appointed and accordingly he was examined as CW-1 and got marked documents Exs.C1 and C1A. 6. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by order dated 11.11.2005. During the pendency of the suit, Court Commissioner was appointed and accordingly he was examined as CW-1 and got marked documents Exs.C1 and C1A. 6. The trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by order dated 11.11.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haveri. The appellate Court after hearing the matter, remitted the matter to the trial Court for framing proper issues and to give a fresh finding on those issues. As per the directions of the appellate Court, the trial Court framed additional issues by recasting the issues. The re-casted issues are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit property, which includes two tamarind trees as on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the alleged interference is true? 3. What order or decree? 7. After re-casting of the issues, the plaintiff got further examined as PW-1 on 02.02.2008 and also examined 3 supporting witnesses as Pws.2 to 4. The defendants did not chose to lead any evidence. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in lawful possession of the suit property which includes two tamarind trees as on the date of the filing of the suit and also held that there is no interference as alleged by the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 8. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2009, filed an appeal in RA No.67 of 2009 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri. On hearing the counsel, the appellate Court raised the points for consideration and answered the said points in the negative holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession and held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. Appeal is abated against respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are served and unrepresented. 10. Being aggrieved by the findings of the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. Appeal is abated against respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are served and unrepresented. 10. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and claims that tamarind trees are situated in the suit property and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, has produced Ex.P-1-certified copy of the decree in O.S. No.105 of 1984 to which the defendants were not parties to the proceedings and the decree passed in O.S. No.105 of 1984 is not binding on the defendants. Further, Ex.P-1 does not disclose the area of the house bearing VPC No.81 but only boundaries are shown. The defendants have categorically denied the boundaries shown in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff has shown wrong boundaries in the plaint and the plaintiff has shown that towards southern side of suit property there is a road and after that there is a land of one Ningappa Talwar. The document which has been produced by the plaintiff as Ex.P-1 does not prove the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, Court Commissioner was appointed and was examined as CW-1. The Court Commissioner visited the suit site and submitted a report which is marked as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C1(a). The trial Court relying upon the report of the Commissioner held that the plaintiff has not disclosed the extent of the suit property but only discloses the boundaries and the defendant in the written statement have denied the boundaries shown in the plaint. 11. From the perusal of the Court Commissioner’s report, it is seen that the plaintiff has shown wrong boundaries in the plaint including the area of Matangi temple and tamarind trees. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and in order to prove the said fact, the plaintiff has not produced any record to show that the suit property is ancestral property. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, examined three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and in order to prove the said fact, the plaintiff has not produced any record to show that the suit property is ancestral property. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, examined three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. PW-2 has deposed with regard to the alleged interference of the defendants on the suit property. But during the course of cross examination PW-2 admits that he does not know the suit property number and further admits that he does not know when the quarrel had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit property. Further admitted that he does not know the area pertaining to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Hence, from perusal of the evidence of PW-2, it is clear that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be relied to prove the actual possession of the plaintiff over the suit property as on the date of the suit, as he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know the area pertaining to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. PW-3 in his cross-examination has admitted that he does not know the suit property number and he does not know the area and boundaries of the suit property. The evidence of PW-3 cannot be relied upon for the reason that he does not know the suit property number and the exact area and boundaries of the suit property. The plaintiff, in order to prove the illegal interference and obstruction by the defendants, examined PW-4. PW-4 during the course of cross-examination has admitted that he does not know about the area of the suit property received by the plaintiff from his ancestors. He does not know the area belongs to whom which is situated between the lose stone wall of plaintiff and road. He further admitted that he does not know in whose area 2 trees are situated. Even the testimony of PW-4 is not reliable to prove the actual possession of the plaintiff over the suit property as well as tamarind trees. He further admitted that he does not know in whose area 2 trees are situated. Even the testimony of PW-4 is not reliable to prove the actual possession of the plaintiff over the suit property as well as tamarind trees. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 and two witnesses were examined as DWs2 an 3 wherein DW-1 has clearly denied that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and further they have relied upon the report of the Court Commissioner. 13. From the perusal of the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff has not rebutted the Court Commissioner’s report and sketch to disprove the same. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record, has rightly dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the suit schedule property and the appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record has rightly dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.