JUDGMENT : S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this present appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 67/2014 dated 27.06.2015 by 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur, itinerate at Mudigere setting aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014 in O.S. No. 24/2007 insofar as it relates to Appellate Court rejecting the prayer for permanent injunction. 2. At the outset, it is to be noted that the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 24/2007 seeking for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction with respect to an extent of one acre one gunta of land in Sy. No. 136/2 of Gowthavalli Village, Mudigere Taluk. The Court of first instance has decreed the suit insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned while rejecting the prayer for declaration on the ground that the relief sought for was barred by law of limitation. The defendants had filed R.A. No. 67/2014 assailing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 24/2007 insofar as it relates to grant of permanent injunction. The appellants had filed a cross-appeal insofar as it relates to the rejection of claim relating to declaration of title. In R.A. No. 67/2014, the appeal of the defendants came to be allowed whereby the relief of permanent injunction that was granted by the Court of first instance was set aside. The appellant has stated that the present appeal has been filed insofar as allowing R.A. No. 67/2014 and this becomes clear on perusal of the appeal memorandum. Though the appellant has stated that the separate appeal would be filed as regards the rejection of cross appeal, no other second appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein and accordingly, the present appeal is being considered only as regards the judgment passed in R.A. No. 67/2014 with regard to setting aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance relating to grant of permanent injunction. The finding regarding title in favour of the defendant has attained finality. 3. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are brothers and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. It is contended that on 05.03.1989, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and their father-Subbegowda had partitioned the joint family properties and copy of the said memorandum of partition was marked as Ex.P7 before the trial Court. It is contended that on 05.03.1989, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and their father-Subbegowda had partitioned the joint family properties and copy of the said memorandum of partition was marked as Ex.P7 before the trial Court. It is to be noted that initially the trial Court had rejected marking of the memorandum of partition and subsequently, the plaintiff had filed W.P. No. 19850/2009 before this Court and this Court by order dated 21.07.2010 had disposed off the said writ petition permitting the plaintiff to mark the memorandum of partition only for collateral purpose. Subsequently, it is stated that the registered deed of partition was entered into on 15.03.1989 and the said partition deed is marked as Ex.P1. It is further submitted that there was restriction under the Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969 to divide the property in Sy. No. 136/2 measuring three acres one gunta and to allot the share of 1st defendant as per the understanding in Ex.P7. It is further contended that on 15.03.1989, there was a Vagdhana Patra that was also executed which would evidence the understanding that the extent of one acre one gunta was allotted to the share of the plaintiff in terms of the earlier partition entered into on 05.03.1989. In the light of differences of opinion between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the entitlement as per the partition deed entered into, the plaintiff had filed O.S. No. 24/2007 initially seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Subsequently, relief of declaration was sought for by way of amendment converting the suit into one for declaration and injunction. The trial Court, after a detailed enquiry, though held in the affirmative as regards to title, rejected the prayer of declaration on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, construing the amendment permitting the plaintiff to claim the relief of declaration to be made from the date of filing of the amendment application i.e. 10.10.2013. The Trial Court held that if the suit was filed in the year 2007 when the cause of action accrued, the relief of declaration was barred by law of limitation. However, as regards to the entitlement of permanent injunction with respect to possession, the Court taking note of the evidence of the witnesses had recorded the finding that the plaintiff was proved to be in possession of the property and thereby, decreed the suit. 4. However, as regards to the entitlement of permanent injunction with respect to possession, the Court taking note of the evidence of the witnesses had recorded the finding that the plaintiff was proved to be in possession of the property and thereby, decreed the suit. 4. R.A. No. 67/2014 came to be filed by the defendants assailing the findings of the trial Court insofar as it relates to grant of relief of permanent injunction, while the plaintiff had assailed the rejection of his declaratory relief by filing of cross objections. The First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance insofar as permanent injunction was granted to the plaintiff, and had also dismissed the cross objection filed by the plaintiff. 5. The appellate Court has observed that the documents including RTC Extract-Ex.P3, Index of Lands-Ex.P.5 and Record of Rights-Ex.P.6 were standing in the name of 1st defendant and taking note of Ex.P.1 has reversed the findings of the trial Court. The Appellate Court has also observed that the findings of the trial Court as regards possession was also based on the Vagdana Patra and in light of the fact that the said document not having been marked, the trial Court ought not to have relied on the Vagdana Patra for the purpose of recording a finding on possession. While holding so, the First Appellate Court has reversed the findings as regards relief of permanent injunction. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of the trial Court on the basis of the oral evidence including that of the 1st defendant was not taken note of by the First Appellate Court and that the revenue entries are only presumptive in nature and the evidence led in the form of oral evidence had rebutted the said presumption and the evidence relating to possession had been rightly appreciated by the trial Court. It is contended that the Appellate Court has set aside the said findings of trial Court relating to possession without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner. It is further contended that there is no impediment to look into the Vagdana Patra by this Court. 7. It is contended that the Appellate Court has set aside the said findings of trial Court relating to possession without appreciating the evidence in a proper manner. It is further contended that there is no impediment to look into the Vagdana Patra by this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the present case and that the averments in Ex.P1 clearly points out that parties had taken possession of their share and if that were to be so, when the other documents relating to revenue entries are taken note of including Ex.P.3, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6, it is clear that possession is with the defendants and the oral evidence that was sought to be relied upon does not, in any way, prove possession in the hands of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the finding of the Appellate Court is arrived at on appreciation of evidence and accordingly, the finding as regards possession, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant however would contend that the findings recorded on evidence by the trial Court not being looked into by the Court of First Appeal would itself amount to giving rise of substantial question of law. It is also contended that the Appellate Court ought not to have upset the judgment and decree of the trial Court only on the basis that the different conclusion could be arrived at on the basis of the same evidence. 9. Heard both the sides. 10. As noted above, the present appeal is restricted only to the validity of the R.A. No. 67/2014. If that were to be so, the setting aside of the judgment and decree of the Court of first instance granting permanent injunction is a matter that is called in question. 11. Though the trial Court has recorded the findings in favour of plaintiff as regards possession, the trial Court has rejected the relief of declaration of title on the ground that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. 11. Though the trial Court has recorded the findings in favour of plaintiff as regards possession, the trial Court has rejected the relief of declaration of title on the ground that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The trial Court, while recording findings with respect to the possession of the plaintiff at para-23 after referring to the evidence of the witnesses in the preceding paragraph from para-16, has recorded a finding that the oral evidence of the witnesses support the averments of Vagdana Patra. It is further held that, though the revenue entries stand in the name of 1st defendant including the katha and RTC, as the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff as per the Vagdana Patra and relying on the oral evidence has held in favour of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court while considering the findings of the Court of first instance has found fault with the trial Court’s reliance on Vagdana Patra. It is clear that the marking of Vagdana Patra not being permitted by order dated 04.06.2009 of the trial Court and the same having been affirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 19850/2009, the trial Court ought not to have relied on the said Vagdana Patra and accordingly, the findings of the Court of First Appeal on such ground is not liable to be interfered with. 12. In fact pursuant to Ex.P.1, the revenue documents have been transferred in the name of the defendants as evidenced by Ex.D1 to D6. Ex.D1 is original licence granted by the Grama Panchayath for constructing the building. As noticed above, the revenue records that have been marked by the defendants including Ex.P.3-RTC, Ex.P.5-Index of Lands and Ex.P.6-Record of Rights, all show that the suit schedule property including the entirety of the Sy. No. 136/2 was standing in the names of defendants. 13. In fact, despite the contention that Ex.P1 is only nominal document, revenue entries were transferred in the name of defendants. The oral evidence, as referred to by the trial Court, does not throw much light on possession, though oral evidence does speak of partition as per Ex.P7 which is stated to be earlier in point of time to Ex.P1. 13. In fact, despite the contention that Ex.P1 is only nominal document, revenue entries were transferred in the name of defendants. The oral evidence, as referred to by the trial Court, does not throw much light on possession, though oral evidence does speak of partition as per Ex.P7 which is stated to be earlier in point of time to Ex.P1. However, the appreciation by the Court of First Appeal of the evidence while noticing that the trial Court’s conclusion is more based upon the Vagdana Pathra which was not marked, is a correct finding, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of First Appellate Court. The oral evidence of the witnesses cannot take away the recitals in Ex.P1 and also does not have the effect of rebutting the cumulative effect of all the revenue records which point out possession of the defendants. It is also to be noted that possession would follow title in case of vacant land. As title is affirmed in respect of the defendants by the trial Court, the possession would also be deemed to follow the title. 14. The trial Court’s appreciation of oral evidence is more in the context of Vagdana Pathra and not independent of it as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that is sought to be canvassed in the judgments relied up on by the learned counsel for the appellant (Memo dated 13.12.2019) regarding the exercise of appellate power by the Court. However, in the present case on hand, the judgments referred to do not come to the aid of the appellant in light of the facts that are made out and the discussion made above. 15. Accordingly, I find that there is no substantial question of law that is made out to admit the appeal; and finding of the Court of First Appeal as regards the appreciation of evidence regarding possession does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed at this stage itself.