JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal lays challenge to the Judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.208/2004 by Presiding Officer Fast Track Court III Bidar dated: 28-11-2005 wherein, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.45/1984 dated: 09-07-2002. 2. Appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants before the trial court. 3. For the purpose of convenience and to avoid repetition of discussion, the parties are referred to in this Judgment as per their respective ranks before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.45/1984 seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing survey No.4 to the extent of 4 acres & 35 guntas. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that, survey No.4 situated at Shahpur village Tq: & Dist: Bidar measures 82 acres & 1 gunta. The defendants are the owners of different lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 8 have encroached survey No.4 of Shahapur village in their respective portions. It is their contention that, plaintiffs Nos.1 & 2 have encroached upon the portion of survey No.4 to the extent of 4 acres & 35 guntas as per the boundaries shown. Since 1975 and they are possession of the same. Survey No.4 of Shahpur village was given to the Forest Department for the purpose of plantation etc. But the Government revised it policy and the ‘C’ class Revenue lands were proposed to be taken back from Forest Department for being assigned to the landless persons, particularly SCs / STs. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that, defendants No.1 to 8 colluding with defendant No.9 made attempt to dispossess them from their possession over the suit land. Hence the plaintiffs filed suit seeking relief of permanent injunction. 5. The defendant No.1 to 8 appeared before the trial court and filed written statement and denied the contents of the plaint averments. The defendants have contended that, plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that, they are in possession of the suit lands. On the contrary the plaintiffs themselves are greedy and want to grab the suit lands by creating false records. The plaintiffs have manipulated the records in collusion with Revenue Inspector. The defendants have contended that, plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that, they are in possession of the suit lands. On the contrary the plaintiffs themselves are greedy and want to grab the suit lands by creating false records. The plaintiffs have manipulated the records in collusion with Revenue Inspector. The plaintiff No.1 is a Government servant and he is the owner of survey No.23/5 measuring 3 acres 13 guntas situated at Ganeshpur Tq: Zaheerabad Dist: Medak. The Asst. Commissioner after verifying the facts and records has withdrawn the proposal made for the plaintiffs. The defendant No.9 filed written statement contending that, the plaintiffs by deceiving Revenue Inspector manipulated false panchnama which cannot establish any rights to the plaintiffs. Further the defendant No.9 denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. With these main grounds the defendants have prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and additional issue. 7. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 got examined themselves as PW.1 & PW.2 and got marked ten documents Exs.P.1 to P.10. Defendants have not produced any oral or documentary evidence. 8. The Trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in R.A.No.208/2004 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bidar. The First Appellate Court after hearing both sides dismissed the regular appeal by confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment in R.A. No.208/2004 the appellants/plaintiffs have filed this Regular Second Appeal on the ground that, the Judgment and decree of both the courts are contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Both the courts have not considered the documentary evidence placed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit lands since 1975. The Judgment and decree of both courts are not tenable in the eye of law. Hence they are liable to be set aside and prayed to frame the substantial question of law as pleaded in the appeal memo. 11. The appeal against respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 already stands abated. 12. Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande learned counsel for appellants argued that the documents produced by the plaintiffs wherein the Tahasildar and Asst. Hence they are liable to be set aside and prayed to frame the substantial question of law as pleaded in the appeal memo. 11. The appeal against respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 already stands abated. 12. Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande learned counsel for appellants argued that the documents produced by the plaintiffs wherein the Tahasildar and Asst. Commissioner have observed that, the plaintiffs are in possession of the property. The possession of the plaintiffs is settled possession and they cannot be evicted by anybody without following due process of law or the procedure established by law. Even a trespasser can maintain his possession against the persons who have no better title over the suit land. Further the learned counsel submitted that, in view of the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, they are entitled for order of injunction. So the learned counsel prayed to admit the appeal. 13. Against this Sri.Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2, 5 & 6 supported the Judgment and decree of both courts and prayed to dismiss the appeal. In support of his arguments, he relied upon following decisions: (1) AIR 1968 SC 620 (Lallu Yeshwant Singh (dead) by his legal representatives Vs Rao Jagdish Singh and others) (2) AIR 1972 SC 2299 (M Kallappa Setty Vs M.V.Lakshminarayana Rao) 3) ILR 2002 KAR. 174 Sampangiramaiah Vs Venkatamma 14. I have heard both sides, perused the Judgment of the trial court, first appellate court, pleadings, evidence available in the trial court records. 15. Admittedly the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 got examined themselves as PW.1 & PW.2 and they have produced the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Ex.P.1 is the pahani of land bearing survey No.4 of Shahpur village wherein the said pahani indicates the land totally measuring 82 acres & 01 gunta and it is mentioned as "Government Gairan land" and for the year 1981-82 in column No.9 it is shown as Government Gairan and the land has been acquired by the B.P.O Bidar for the construction of house in PHE scheme. It is also mentioned that, nobody cultivated the said land. So this Ex.P.1 goes against the plaintiffs. It clearly indicates that, it is a Government land and the Government is the owner and possessor of the said land. It is also mentioned that, nobody cultivated the said land. So this Ex.P.1 goes against the plaintiffs. It clearly indicates that, it is a Government land and the Government is the owner and possessor of the said land. The plaintiffs have also produced sketch as per Ex.P.2 sketch map of survey No.4 of Shahpur issued by ADLR Bidar, which will also not help the plaintiffs in any way. Further the plaintiffs have also produced documents issued by the Revenue Authorities as per Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10 wherein the Revenue Authorities have mentioned that, the plaintiffs are the encroachers and there was no recommendation to regularize the possession of Government land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also mentioned in column No.13 of Ex.P.3 that the land is transferred to Forest Department. 16. The defendants have contended that, the plaintiffs have manipulated the documents just to create some records. On the other hand, there are absolutely no records to show that, plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. Both the trial court and first appellate court after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs have come to conclusion that, the plaintiffs have not examined any person other than themselves to show that, they are in actual possession of the suit properties. 17. It is also evident from the evidence and Judgment of both the courts that, the plaintiffs have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for grant of the said land and for regularization of the cultivation. The said prayer of the plaintiffs was rejected by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Against that order the plaintiffs have preferred writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka and the said writ petition also came to be dismissed by the High Court. The plaintiff’s contention that, they are in unauthorized occupation of the said land and they approached the authorities for regularization of their unauthorized occupation has already attained finality rejecting their claim. So already there is a finding that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any such regularization. The trial court has referred to the decision of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and High Court wherein it is clearly observed that, there is nothing on record which goes to show that on what date and on what order the plaintiffs are claiming their possession over the suit property. There is no material available in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial court has referred to the decision of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and High Court wherein it is clearly observed that, there is nothing on record which goes to show that on what date and on what order the plaintiffs are claiming their possession over the suit property. There is no material available in favour of the plaintiffs. Both the courts have held that, the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that, they are residents of the said village. Simply because that the defendants have not adduced any evidence it does not mean that, the suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed. 18. The first appellate court has considered the documentary evidence Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and come to the conclusion that, the panchnama does not disclose on which date it has been prepared by the Revenue Inspector, nor any evidence is led to that effect. The panchnama also does not disclose the boundaries of the land in which if at all the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. If all the plaintiffs are in unauthorized occupation of the land bearing survey No.4 which totally consists of 82 acres & 1 gunta the panchnama does not reveal within which boundaries the plaintiffs are cultivating the land. 19. When the defendants have taken contention that, the letters at Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8 & Ex.P.10 are concocted and they have contended that, the said letters have been withdrawn, then it is the duty of the plaintiffs to prove those documents. PW.1 in his evidence has expressed ignorance about those documents. Except self serving testimony of PW.1 and PW.2, no other person is examined to prove their possession over the suit lands. The only witness Ghalappa is examined as PW.3 did not turn up for further examination or for cross-examination in support of proof of possession by plaintiffs. None of the neigbours of the said lands were examined. The plaintiffs only based on some documents which are also not admitted by the defendants the plaintiffs cannot claim that they are in possession of the suit properties. 20. None of the neigbours of the said lands were examined. The plaintiffs only based on some documents which are also not admitted by the defendants the plaintiffs cannot claim that they are in possession of the suit properties. 20. Both the courts have considered the decision relied upon by the plaintiffs reported in AIR 1972 SC 2299 in case of M. Kallappa Setty Vs M.V Venkatamma and held that, though the principles stated in that decision are settled, but in this case the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit properties and also failed to prove the interference by the defendants. 21. Further in similar set of facts learned single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in 2020 (2) AKR 476 : AIR Online 2020 Kar.229 in case of Kantappa Hanamanthappa Somakkanavar and others Vs State of Karnataka and others has considered suit scope for grant of relief of permanent injunction when suit property belong to Government. It is held that, when the suit property is Gawathana which is used as common open area by villagers since time immemorial – Plaintiff failed to establish exclusive possession of suit property and interference by defendant in alleged possession – Dismissal of suit is proper. Further it is held at para No.11 as under: “11. Secondly, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs have failed to identify the suit property with its correct boundaries and in the absence of the same, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief as sought for. They have further contended that the plaintiffs in the guise of seeking permanent injunction are usurping the possession of the property in VPC Nos.183 and 184 of Sarwad village. Defendants further contention is that the said property bearing VPC Nos.183 and 184 not only includes constructed portion but, also open space. It is the said open space, exclusive possession of which the plaintiffs are now claiming to be a part of alleged Gawathana in Sy.No.804 and also claim to be in their exclusive possession. Both the Courts below have accepted the said contention of the defendants and have opined that the plaintiffs have failed to identify the suit property with its correct description. Both the Courts below have accepted the said contention of the defendants and have opined that the plaintiffs have failed to identify the suit property with its correct description. When that being the finding on fact by both the Courts below, this Court in the second appeal need not re-appreciate the said fact and find any error with the finding by the Courts below upon a fact, that too, particularly when the appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence led before it. In such an event, when the plaintiffs’ alleged exclusive possession of the suit property has been specifically denied by the defendants, on the contrary, when the defendants claim that the property attempted to identify by the plaintiffs, is the exclusive property under ownership of the defendants, then the plaintiffs ought to have sought for appropriate remedy in the Court below but not confining to the relief of permanent injunction. Thirdly, when according to the plaintiffs, the property in question belonging to the Government and the Government which was arrayed as defendant No.1 has chosen to remain ex perte and defendant No.2 – Secretary Gram Panchayath even through appeared through its counsel still has chosen not to file written statement and contest the matter, the very contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants are causing any obstruction leads to suspicion. Otherwise, defendant Nos.1 and 2 would have filed their written statement and supported the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is the property of the Government and defendants are causing obstruction for the enjoyment of the same even by the plaintiffs. Both the Trial Court as well the first appellate Court since have appreciated the material placed before it in a proper perspective including the documents marked from both sides and arrived at the same conclusion with respect to plaintiffs’ failing to establish that they are in exclusive possession of the suit property and that the defendants are causing any interference in the said alleged possession by the plaintiffs, I am of the view that no substantial question of law remains to be considered in this appeal and the finding of fact by both the Courts below does not warrant any interference by this Court. As such, the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission, as devoid of merits.” 22. As such, the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission, as devoid of merits.” 22. In this case also the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession over the suit property and interference by the defendants. Admittedly the claim of the plaintiffs is rejected by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and High Court by giving a finding that, they have failed to prove their possession over the suit property and not entitled for any regularization of land. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts the appeal is liable to be dismissed as no substantial question of law arise for consideration so as to admit this appeal. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and decree passed by the Presiding Officer Fast Track Court-III Bidar in Regular Appeal No.208/2004 dated: 28-11-2005 is hereby confirmed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Send back the secured records to the concerned courts forthwith.