JUDGMENT : It is plaintiffs’ appeal. The suit of the present appellants/plaintiffs against the present respondents/defendants for the relief of permanent injunction came to be dismissed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) at Bijapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in O.S.No.126/2004 by its judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A.No.84/2007 before the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Bijapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘first appellate Court’) which also came to be dismissed by the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 25.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the plaint averments in the Trial Court was that, the suit property which is said to be a land bearing No.804 situated at Sarwad village, measuring 42 feet East – West and 80 feet North – South was being used by the villagers of Sarwad by parking their cart and tying their cattles for better benefit and enjoyment of the suit property. It is a Gawathana area owned by defendant No.1 which is the State of Karnataka and was used as a common property as an open area by the villagers and residents of Sarwad village since time immemorial as a public property. However, recently defendant Nos.3 to 5 are trying to obstruct the plaintiffs’ right of enjoyment of the suit property and falsely claiming the suit property as their property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction. 3. Despite service of notice, defendant No.1 which is the State of Karnataka has remained exparte. Defendant No.2, who is Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Sarwad Village, Vijayapur Taluk (then Bijapur) though appeared through its counsel, but, did not file written statement. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement where they contended that the property bearing VPC Nos.183 and 184 in Sarwad village was consisting of constructed portion and as well open space. After the death of defendant No.4, defendant Nos.3 and 5 and father of defendant No.4 have partitioned the said property and since then they are in possession of the said property. They further contended that the plaintiffs have failed to identify independent existence of the alleged suit property which according to the plaintiffs measures 42 feet x 80 feet. After the death of defendant No.4, defendant Nos.3 and 5 and father of defendant No.4 have partitioned the said property and since then they are in possession of the said property. They further contended that the plaintiffs have failed to identify independent existence of the alleged suit property which according to the plaintiffs measures 42 feet x 80 feet. They also contended that the plaintiffs by giving a wrong description of the said open space which is in possession of the defendants, have filed a false suit in order to harass the defendants. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and villagers using an area of 42 ft. East-West and 80 ft. North-South of land Sy.No.804 measuring 13 acres of Sarwad village from time immemorial as public property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove obstruction by the defendant 3 to 5, in their right of enjoyment of the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction against defendant 3 to 5? 4. What order/decree? 5. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs got examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. From the defendants’ side, two witnesses as DWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court while answering issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the negative proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs by its judgment and decree dated 02.03.2007. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A.No.84/2007 before the first appellate Court which also by its impugned judgment dated 25.08.2010 dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants in his argument submitted that the judgments passed by the Courts below are erroneous, as such, the appeal deserves to be admitted. The learned counsels for the respondents have remained absent. 7. Perused the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgments and decrees. 8. The plaintiffs in their plaint itself have stated that the suit property which according to them bears Survey No.804 of Sarwad village, is a Government property. They have sated that the said property in total measures 13 Acres 1 Gunta. 7. Perused the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgments and decrees. 8. The plaintiffs in their plaint itself have stated that the suit property which according to them bears Survey No.804 of Sarwad village, is a Government property. They have sated that the said property in total measures 13 Acres 1 Gunta. According to the plaintiffs themselves, the said property is Gawathana which is being used as a common property as an open area by all the villagers and the residents of Sarwad village since time immemorial as a public property. Even according to them it is a public property and this aspect, the plaintiffs have sated in the form of their pleading in their plaint itself. According to them, the defendants are trying to obstruct the plaintiffs’ from enjoying the suit property. 9. At this juncture itself it is worth to be noted that the prayer made by the plaintiffs in the plaint reads as follows: A. To pass a decree of perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants 3 to 5 restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. B. Cost of the suit may be awarded 10. When the plaintiffs’ pleading is that the suit property which measures more than 13 acres is Gawathana property which according to them is a Government property as that of public property meant for the use of the entire residents and villagers of Sarwad village, it is not known how the plaintiffs claim an exclusive possession of an area measuring 42 feet x 80 feet in the said Survey No.804 and would expect others including the defendants not to cause obstruction to the plaintiffs’ alleged possession of piece of the property as their exclusive possession and that the defendants should not cause any interference in it. Had it been the plaintiffs’ contention that the suit property being a Government property meant for public use and the same is used by the plaintiffs also, then, they should not have claimed exclusive possession over the said property, but, should have sought for a proper order or relief from the Court to ensure their unobstructed enjoyment of the said property along with other villagers and residents of Sarwad village who also said to have a right to use the said property. However, the plaintiffs in their prayer have excluded everyone and appear to have claimed their exclusive possession with respect to the suit property. Thus, a prayer for perpetual injunction as against the defendants by restraining them from interfering in the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs appears to be not sustainable. In this way the very pleading of the plaintiffs is not in consonance with the prayer made in the plaint. 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. When that being the finding on fact by both the Courts below, this Court in the second appeal need not reappreciate 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 exparte and defendant No.2 – Secretary Gram Panchayath even though 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.