JUDGMENT : 1. Hanumanti, the plaintiff, filed a suit for a decree for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. 2. It was her case that the suit properties were standing in the name of her husband and after his death, she had succeeded to the same and was in lawful possession. She contended that when she was undertaking the construction work the defendants sought to interfere with her possession and hence she was constrained to file the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff was trying to grab the suit plot by filing a false suit and defendant No.2 contended that she was the owner in possession of the suit properties. She claimed that she had succeeded to the suit property from her husband Hiretimmanna. 4. The Trial Court on appreciation of the documentary as well as oral evidence recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff had proved that she was in lawful possession of the suit and proceeded to decree the suit. The Trial Court mainly relied upon the tax paid receipt and other panchayat documents to come to the above conclusion. 5. The defendants carried the matter in appeal and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court could not be found fault with and from the documentary evidence produced, it was clear that the plaintiff was in possession and the Appellate Court accordingly dismissed the appeal. 6. It is against this concurrent finding of fact that this second appeal has been filed. 7. The only question that is required to be determined in a suit for injunction is regarding the possession of the plaintiff as on the date of the suit. In the instant case, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have recorded clear findings of fact that the plaintiff was in possession. In my view, there is no infirmity in the said findings. In any view of the matter, there is no question of law, much less, a substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. It is needless to state that it is open for the defendants to file a comprehensive suit seeking for appropriate relief’s if they are so advised in respect of the suit properties.