JUDGMENT : SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. He claimed the reliefs of declaration of his title over 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 10/2AP2 of Hallihal Village, Harihar Taluk and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession. The trial court by its judgment dated 17.01.2005 dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiff’s case is that 10 acres 29 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10 of Hallihal Village belonged to one Karibasappa. His son Giriyappa sold 6 acres of land to the plaintiff’s grandfather Basavanagowda on 11.2.1949. Basavanagowda then sold the said land to Hanumanagowda on 3.6.1954. The plaintiff’s father purchased the very same land on 30.4.1957 and then sold 3 acres out of 6 acres to one Kuberappa on the northern side. The first defendant purchased this 3 acres of land from Kuberappa on 3.6.1992. But, on 31.7.1972, a partition had taken place according to which 2 acres of land was allotted to plaintiff’s father and 1 acre to his brother Nandigowda. On 28.10.1978 again there was a partition and in this partition the suit property, i.e. measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 10/2AP2 was allotted to the plaintiff. At that time the plaintiff was a minor and therefore his father was appointed as a guardian. Thus the plaintiff states to have become the owner of the suit property and claims to be in possession of the same. 3. On 4.5.2003 at about 10.00 am when the plaintiff’s wife was working in the suit property, the defendant No. 1 attempted to encroach the suit property on northern side. It is alleged that defendant No. 2 supported defendant No. 1 at that time. Therefore the plaintiff instituted a suit for the aforesaid relief. 4. The first defendant admitted the transactions stated in the plaint and also the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. He asserted to be in possession of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 10/2 having purchased the same from Kuberappa in the year 1992. 5. The second defendant denied all the transactions that the plaintiff has referred to. He stated that Karibasappa was his paternal grandfather. He had six sons namely Hanumagouda, Channappa, Basappa, Thimmanagouda, Giriyappa and Rudrappa. Second defendant is the son of Rudrappa. No. 10/2 having purchased the same from Kuberappa in the year 1992. 5. The second defendant denied all the transactions that the plaintiff has referred to. He stated that Karibasappa was his paternal grandfather. He had six sons namely Hanumagouda, Channappa, Basappa, Thimmanagouda, Giriyappa and Rudrappa. Second defendant is the son of Rudrappa. In an oral partition that had taken place about 80 years prior to institution of the suit, the land in Sy. No. 10 was allotted to Giriyappa and Rudrappa and in that partition northern portion of Sy. No. 10 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas fell to the share of Rudrappa and southern portion 5 acres 15 guntas fell to the share of Giriyappa. This is evidenced by the katchha hissa prepared by the revenue authorities. Sy. No. 10 was sub-divided into 10/1 and 10/2. The share allotted to Rudrappa was assigned 10/1 and Giriyappa, 10/2. Since then the second defendant and his father were in possession of the land in Sy. No. 10/1. Further contention of the second defendant is that his senior uncle Giriyappa subjected his 5 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10/2 to mortgages several times and in all the mortgage deeds, the extent is shown as 5 acres 15 guntas only. But when he sold the land to Basavanagowda, i.e. the plaintiff’s grandfather, he mentioned the extent as 6 acres in the sale deed instead of 5 acres 15 guntas. Thereafter the plaintiff’s father Mahadevappa and uncle Nandigowda jointly sold 6 acres of land in favour of Kengajji Hanumagowda who in turn sold 6 acres of land to Mahadevappa, i.e. the plaintiff’s father. Thereafter plaintiff’s father sold 3 acres to Kuberagowda from whom the first defendant purchased 3 acres of land. Giving these details it is contended by the second defendant that the plaintiff or his ancestors were never in possession of 6 acres of land, they held possession of only 5 acres 15 guntas. He was in possession of 5 acres 14 guntas. The extent of possession of the lands by the parties was confirmed by the Civil Court in an earlier proceeding and this binds the plaintiff and he cannot contend to be in possession of the suit property to the extent of 2 acres. He also denied the interference by him with the plaintiff’s land. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. He also denied the interference by him with the plaintiff’s land. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. I have heard the arguments of the advocates for the appellant and the respondent. 7. The appellant’s advocate argued that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence, its finding that the appellant’s title does not get established is erroneous, in that ExP.38 clearly shows admission by defendant No. 2 that the total extent of his land is only 4.29 acres and this admission is enough to hold that appellant is in possession of 2 acres of land. Therefore his title gets proved. But the respondents counsel argued that the appellant being the plaintiff has to independently prove his title, and he cannot depend on defendants weakness. The appellant has not produced any document to establish his title. Giriyappa, through whom the appellant traces his title sold more than the extent of the land actually possessed by him. This is proved. In the judgment in RA 13/2002, the possession of land held by each of the parties is made clear. The documents produced by the second defendant during the trial of the suit show that Giriyappa possessed only 5.15 acres; not 6 acres. Moreover from the sketch it is clear that second defendant’s land is not situated adjacent to appellant’s land and hence encroachment by the second defendant is highly impossible. The trial court has discussed the evidence in detail. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. Therefore the question to be answered in this appeal is, “Whether the trial court has rightly held that plaintiff’s title is not proved?” 9. I have perused the entire evidence both oral and documentary. It is established principle that detail discussion is not required if the trial court’s judgment needs to be confirmed. On re-appreciation of evidence what is found is that the appellant has failed to prove his title over suit land. 10. There is no dispute that 10 acres 29 guntas of land in Sy. No. 10 belonged to Karibasappa. One of his sons viz. Giriyappa sold 6 acres out of 10.29 acres. According to appellant, his father purchased the same extent i.e. 6 acres on 30.04.1957 and then sold northern side 3 acres out of 6 acres to Kuberappa who then sold 3 acres of land to first defendant. No. 10 belonged to Karibasappa. One of his sons viz. Giriyappa sold 6 acres out of 10.29 acres. According to appellant, his father purchased the same extent i.e. 6 acres on 30.04.1957 and then sold northern side 3 acres out of 6 acres to Kuberappa who then sold 3 acres of land to first defendant. He states that there took place a partition on 31.07.1972 according to which 2 acres of land fell to the share of his father and 1 acre to Nandigowda, who was the brother of plaintiff’s father. Again there was a partition on 28.10.1978 on the basis of which plaintiff acquired title over suit land. Ex.P33 is the certified copy of partition deed dated 31.07.1972. Ex.P34 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.01.1949 under which Giriyappa sold 6 acres of land to one Basavanagowda. Here lies the dispute, as according to defendants, Giriyappa possessed only 5.15 acres of land; he had no title over 6 acres of land. It is stated that Giriyappa got 5.14½ acres of land and his brother Rudrappa got 5.14½ acres in an oral partition of 10.29 guntas in Sy. No. 10. The defendants have produced certified copies of mortgage deeds as per Ex.D10 and Ex.D11 said to have been executed by Giriyappa. These two documents indicate a partition having taken place between Giriyappa and his brother and that Giriyappa got only 5.14½ acres of land. The recitals in the mortgage deed are relevant to doubt Giriyappa’s right to sell 6 acres of land. Therefore defendants’ contentions are not improbable. 11. The second defendant very much rely upon Ex.D32, certified copy of the judgment in RA 13/2002 which arose from the suit O.S.377/89 filed by one Kuberagowda against both the defendants in the case on hand. Of course, the appellant was not a party in the previous suit. But in that suit; the extent of land allotted to Giriyappa and his brother, Rudrappa arose for discussion, and the judgment in RA 13/2002 shows that the parties therein admitted that Giriyappa got only 5.15 acres. The first defendant in the case on hand is none other than appellant’s brother. For this reason, the judgment in RA 13/2002 may be relevant, the trial court has rightly considered this point and therefore the appellant’s title over 2 acres of land originating from the transactions that he has pleaded appears to be doubtful. The first defendant in the case on hand is none other than appellant’s brother. For this reason, the judgment in RA 13/2002 may be relevant, the trial court has rightly considered this point and therefore the appellant’s title over 2 acres of land originating from the transactions that he has pleaded appears to be doubtful. 12. The actualities that can be made out from documents being as pointed above, the oral evidence may not assume importance. However one answer of PW-1 i.e. the appellant is necessary to be referred to here. He has admitted the suggestion that in between his land and second defendant’s land, the land of first defendant is situated. That means if at all there was any attempt to encroach upon his land, it might be by first defendant only; in the plaint also he has stated that on 04.05.2003, the defendant tried to encroach upon his land, and the only allegation against defendant No. 2 is that he supported defendant No. 1. But strangely enough he has stated in the cross examination that there might be encroachment by second defendant on the first defendant’s land and therefore the first defendant might encroach upon his land. This very answer rules out any attempt of encroachment by the second defendant, and secondly it shows a mere apprehension, entire case put forward by the plaintiff thus loses probability. 13. In the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the trial court has not considered Ex.P.38, which is a declaration given by the second defendant at the time of taking financial assistance from the State Bank of Mysore. In Ex.P.38, he has indicated that 4.29 acres in S. No. 10/1 belonged to him. In my opinion this document does not help the appellant, for there are other documents that clearly indicate that Giriyappa could lay claim only 5.14½ acres of land and nothing more; the written statement filed by second defendant also contains explanation as to how the second defendant was put in possession of 4.29 acres of land; but this document does not establish plaintiff’s title. 14. The trial court has therefore correctly concluded that appellant’s title has not been proved. The allegations made by the appellant about interference with his possession of suit land lacks trustworthy evidence. 15. 14. The trial court has therefore correctly concluded that appellant’s title has not been proved. The allegations made by the appellant about interference with his possession of suit land lacks trustworthy evidence. 15. The above discussion takes me to conclude that there cannot be any interference with trial court’s judgment and consequently this appeal is dismissed with costs.