JUDGMENT : These two regular second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-01-2000 passed in two separate regular appeals in R.A.No.75/1989 and R.A.No.23/1989 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Tumkur. 2. R.S.A.No.618/2000 is filed by the appellants/ defendants-Siddalingamma and others against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.75/1989 connected to O.S.No.31/1982. R.S.A.No.619/2000 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff-Chidananda against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.23/1989 connected to O.S.No.22/1982. Since both the matters are inter connected in the form of parties and the schedule properties, they are disposed of in common. 3. In order to avoid conflict and overlapping, the parties are addressed in accordance with their rankings and status as held by them before the Trial Court so also with their names. 4. O.S.No.22/1982 filed by plaintiff-Chidananda came to be dismissed on 9-1-1989 and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-Chidananda in Regular Appeal No.23/1989 also came to be dismissed and against which RSA No.619/2000 is preferred by him. Similarly, O.S.No.31/1982 filed by Abdul Subhan Sab son of Mohamed Sab came to be decreed on 09-01-1989 and R.A.No.75/1989 that was preferred by the defendants-Siddalingamma and others came to be dismissed and against which RSA No.618/2000 is preferred by the defendants-Siddalingamma and others. In other words to say, plaintiff in OS No.22/1982 suffered dismissal of his plea and similarly OS No.31/1982 is decreed in favour of plaintiff. Thus, both the regular second appeals are preferred by Chidananda and Siddalingamma and others. Regard being had to the fact that plaintiff in OS No.31/1982 Abdul Subhan Sab had filed the said suit for a permanent injunction and the said suit came to be decreed in his favour and plaintiff Chidananda has filed O.S.No.22/1982 for declaration and injunction which came to be dismissed. 5. The schedule property claimed by the plaintiff-Chidananda in O.S.No.22/1982 is as under; Site measuring 40 feet East-West and 33 feet North-South bearing Municipal Khata No.625/624 situated at Panduranganagar, Tumkur Town, bounded on: East by : Galli Road; West by : Site of T.M. Puttasiddappa previously; North by: House of G.H. Siddagangappa South by: Galli Road. 5. The schedule property claimed by the plaintiff-Chidananda in O.S.No.22/1982 is as under; Site measuring 40 feet East-West and 33 feet North-South bearing Municipal Khata No.625/624 situated at Panduranganagar, Tumkur Town, bounded on: East by : Galli Road; West by : Site of T.M. Puttasiddappa previously; North by: House of G.H. Siddagangappa South by: Galli Road. Similarly, the schedule property mentioned by the plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab in O.S.No.31/1982 is as under: Site with compound situated in Kota Jayachamarajendra road, Tumkur Town bounded on: East by : Municipal road, wall of Tulasamma’s house and site sold by T.M.P. Siddappa to Tulasamma; West by: House of Gubbanna in possession of his children and wife; North by: Path in between this property and house of Huchanna and Budabasab’s house now fell to the share of Huchanna and compound of Tulasamma’s house; South by: Road now formed by Government. 6. According to plaintiff-Chidananda, he purchased the schedule property from its owners Kempanna and Narasimhaiah under the registered sale deed dated 8.9.1980 which is stated to be a site measuring 40 ft x 33 ft bearing Municipal Katha Nos. 625/624 situated at Panduranganagar, Tumkur. 7. Defendant –Abdul Subhan Sab filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that he purchased the suit property and some more properties adjoining it from T.M.P.Siddappa whose title and possession was declared in O.S.No.550/1955 under a registered sale deed dated 17-12-1981 and has been in possession and has paid taxes and plaintiff-Chidananda has filed the suit without title or possession. 8. Similarly Abdul Subhan Sab, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.31/1982 seeks for the relief of injunction against the Chidananda and others in respect of the suit schedule property claiming that, originally, suit schedule property belonged to T.M. Puttasiddappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants No.2 to 4 disputed the title of T.M.Puttasiddappa and therefore, he filed a suit for declaration of his title in OS No.550/1955 which came to be decreed and appeal preferred against the same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, T.M.P. Siddappa sold the suit property in favour of Plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab under a registered sale deed on 17-12-1981 and delivered the possession and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, T.M.P. Siddappa sold the suit property in favour of Plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab under a registered sale deed on 17-12-1981 and delivered the possession and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further contended that defendants have absolutely no manner of right, title, or interest in the suit property, however they are interfering with the same. 9. On the basis of the pleas and contentions of both the parties, learned trial judge framed necessary issues and he was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1-T.S.Chidananda, PW2-K.Narasimhaiah and PW3-K.Kempanna and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of plaintiff Chidananda and oral evidence of DW1-Abdul Suban Sab and Dw2-T.M.Puttasiddappa and documentary evidence of Exs.D1 to D17. 10. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge dismissed O.S.No.22/1982 and decreed O.S.No.31/1982. The operative partition reads as under : “Suit in O.S.22/82 is dismissed. Suit in OS 31/82 is decreed in the following terms: The defendants in OS 31/82 are hereby restrained permanently form interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since both the parties have filed a suit and a counter suit and in view of the facts and circumstances of both the case, I direct both the parties to bear their respective costs in both the suits. Let a copy of this judgment be kept in OS 31/1982.” 11. Against the said judgment and decree, plaintiff-Chidananda preferred Regular Appeal No.23/1989 which came to be dismissed and against which RSA No.619/2000 is preferred by him. Similarly, OS NO.31/1982 filed by Abdul Subhan Sab son of Mohamed Sab came to be decreed and R.A.No.75/1989 that was preferred by the defendants-Siddalingamma and others came to be dismissed and against which RSA No.618/2000 is preferred by the defendants-Siddalingamma and others as mentioned above. 12. This Court while admitting the appeals on 6-11-2000 framed the following substantial question of law : Whether the lower courts ignored to appreciate the documents in proper perspective on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.22/1982 and also further committed an error with respect to the identity of the suit property? 13. 12. This Court while admitting the appeals on 6-11-2000 framed the following substantial question of law : Whether the lower courts ignored to appreciate the documents in proper perspective on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.No.22/1982 and also further committed an error with respect to the identity of the suit property? 13. Earlier, this Court by its judgment and decree dated 25th June 2007 allowed RSA No.619/2000 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 22/1982 and RA No.23/1989 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in OS No.22/1982 declaring that the appellant in RSA No.619/2000 is the owner of the property and dismissed the appeal in RSA No.618/2000. Against which, Abdul Suban Sab approached Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 687-688 of 2013 which came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by this court and remanded the matter to this Court for fresh consideration. 14. After the remand, the learned counsel for both the parties have addressed their arguments. 15. Learned counsel Sri.Sunil Kumar Patel for Sri. S.K.Venkata reddy for appellant would submit that, sale deed was executed in favour of his vendor on 4.8.1975 and the schedule property was sold by vendor of the plaintiff Chidananda to Shafiulla and the same has been purchased back by the vendor. Thus the documents available supports the case of Chidananda. Learned counsel further submits that the plaint lacks precision and certainty in the matter of identity. 16. Learned counsel Sri. Narayana and Sri. Purandara B, for respondent Nos. 1(A) to (C) would submit that, in the partition deed Ex.D9 suit property fell to the share of the vendor of Abdul Subhan Sab i.e. T.M.P. Siddappa. Thus, plaintiff-Chidananda is not justified in denying the title of Abdul Subhan Sab. 17. Both the parties are claiming that respective schedule properties belonged to them. Only inference is, in the suit filed in O.S.No.22/1982 plaintiff Chidananda seeks for declaration and for permanent injunction. Regard being had to the fact that in O.S.No. 31/1982 plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab who purchased the property from T.M.P.Siddappa is seeking for permanent injunction. 18. After reading the pleadings, perusing the materials and hearing the learned counsel, the following points are amply clear : * Both the parties are claiming the respective schedule properties as belonging to them. Regard being had to the fact that in O.S.No. 31/1982 plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab who purchased the property from T.M.P.Siddappa is seeking for permanent injunction. 18. After reading the pleadings, perusing the materials and hearing the learned counsel, the following points are amply clear : * Both the parties are claiming the respective schedule properties as belonging to them. * The title deed for the plaintiff in OS No.22/1982 is Ex.P1 which is the sale deed dated 8-9-1980. * In sofar as plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab is concerned, it is the copy of the partition deed dated 18-10-1936. * It is to be seen that the cause of action for initiating suit covers rights of the parties when it was created or when it was derived. 19. Insofar as title is concerned, it is original or derivative. In other words to say, the existence of the property, facts complying the limitation in the plaint and the nature of right over the land and the description can be seen in the pleadings of the plaint filed under order 7 Rule 8 CPC. So also written statement whether they are admitted or denied must be specifically stated. This applies to both the parties. But the rules of pleadings provide for facts alone. 20. Now the question is, the suit may be to remove encroachment over the property or to direct the defendants not to interfere with the possession. Farmer relates when the encroachment is pleaded and who have also come for recovery of possession. In the later before any encroachment is made, the story of apprehension of the interference would revoke possession and relief sought is for permanent injunction. 21. Here, it is not a case of encroachment. The schedule described by the defendant are morefully and specifically as stated above. 22. Now the relevant factor that comes to the Court’s mind is that, what was the property obtained under your eye and what was the property that went to the share of T.M.P Siddappa under a registered partition deed. The answer is, it is a property situated at Chickpet Tumkur Town. In the column meant for extent, nothing is shown. On the other hand, the boundaries are given as: East by:municipal road; West by: Gubbanna’s old house; North by Panchayath road and backyard of Puttasiddappa and on the South by: Road. The same boundaries continues in the sale deed. 23. In the column meant for extent, nothing is shown. On the other hand, the boundaries are given as: East by:municipal road; West by: Gubbanna’s old house; North by Panchayath road and backyard of Puttasiddappa and on the South by: Road. The same boundaries continues in the sale deed. 23. Plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab is claiming under T.M.P Siddappa. In this connection, Court feels it necessary to state a Latin maxim nemo dat quad non habet which literally means that “no one can convey better than what he has.” Now that the things are not different, wherein the parties fought for a square foot or inch of the property as well. More particularly, meters. What I have mentioned above is, whether in order to occupy or to commence construction or involving acts of possession, the location of the property is very much important and at the same time, the other things of identification such as measurement, whether the schedule property is in the shape of triangle, quadrilateral, pentagon and so on and the boundaries also specifically is to be stated. If A and B are the neigh borers, the property of A starts where exactly the property of B ends. Unless it is not specifically stated that the plaintiff in both the cases are neighbhours, but in the context, it is revealed that they have topographical conflict in respect of two properties in one area. 24. There is no details regarding appointment of commissioner under order 26 Rule 9 CPC because, when there is a conflict between the parties regarding the location of the property, even if both are claiming the same property or otherwise canvassing before the court may be property of one party is different from others. During that stage when the Court Commissioner is appointed and when he is asked to measure the schedule property or instruct both the parties shall come to the property which the claimed by plaintiff and defendants. It is in this connection, measurement is the first aspect that prevails because it shows precision and location. Thus identification of property, particularly, when there is a dispute between the neighbors mentioning of measurement is invariably necessary. In the partition deed, Ex.P1, filed by the plaintiff in OS No.31/1982 neither the plaintiff nor the sale deed and measurement of the property is forthcoming. Thus identification of property, particularly, when there is a dispute between the neighbors mentioning of measurement is invariably necessary. In the partition deed, Ex.P1, filed by the plaintiff in OS No.31/1982 neither the plaintiff nor the sale deed and measurement of the property is forthcoming. In this connection, the surprise package is, how the document is registered by the Sub Registrar when he does not know the measurement and when it is not reflected, may be the reason that sale deed is dated 17-10-1982. 25. Now in the given situation, as an example, when the property of A is bounded on the East by property of B, and East-West measurement is not available at any point of time through any documents, then there are every chances that either A or B can misuse the situation, because, East-West measurement of the particular property is not mentioned, it would be very difficult for ascertaining who has valid records and specific evidence must be there. 26. In the whole of the pleadings or documents, there is not even a single paper which provides or defines the measurement either East to West or North to South. On the other hand, while submitting the arguments, learned counsel submits that there are three measurement for his property. One is, East West, total measurement of item No.1 is 1470 and item No.2 is 1122 sq. ft. 3rd one is 297 sq.ft. It does not tell among the three whether which property is by the side of another one and whether the bigger property which is the second one is bigger than the others or otherwise towards north which is stated as path and thereafter Huchamma’s property is stated to be the grand father of plaintiff Chidananda assuming that the property of Huchamma will not constitute the valid reasoning because there are no connecting or enabling material. In the circumstances, the measurement are not evidenced by Ex.D1, Sale deed, Ex.D2-decree, Ex.D3 certified copy of sketch. In Ex.D7 Sketch the specific measurements are not mentioned. Thus, either the sketch or the schedule or the main documents or source of title deeds are not available. 27. The learned trial judge and the appellate judge have upheld the claim of Abdul Subhan Sab. Nobody is disputed the sale deed executed in favour of Abdul Subhan Sab. But what was the measurement of the property claimed by plaintiff-Abdul Subhan is not forthcoming. 27. The learned trial judge and the appellate judge have upheld the claim of Abdul Subhan Sab. Nobody is disputed the sale deed executed in favour of Abdul Subhan Sab. But what was the measurement of the property claimed by plaintiff-Abdul Subhan is not forthcoming. It is totally a strange situation wherein a person claims property and does not give the measurement. 28. The another aspect that has to be noticed here is, assuming that the property presently owned by plaintiff Chidananda belonged to Huchamma during 30 or 40 years back, but it is not established. The sketch filed by the plaintiff separates the property of Huchamma by a path. The sketch is not authenticated, as the details are not forthcoming. In the whole circumstances, I find both the trial court and the first appellate court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Chidananda in O.S.No.22/1982 and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Abdul Subhan Sab in O.S.No.31/1982. Insofar as permanent injunction is concerned, there was no concrete evidence for possession or apprehension of interference or lawful possession. Equally in O.S.No.22/1982, the title of the plaintiff is, the deed produced as sale deed and mandal records and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 define both the measurement and the property number. 29. On facts, the evidence produced by the plaintiff-Chidananda is based on sale deed and no illegality is attached to it. It was sold and purchased back. Insofar as documents filed by him are concerned, they are sale deed and municipal records which are in his favour and tallies with the description and also the extent. 30. Per contra, the partition deed of the year 1936 filed by the plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab does not stand to reasons in terms of measurement and the same was sold by T.M.P. Siddappa in favour of plaintiff Abdul Subhan Sab in O.S.No.31/1982 and rough sketch is marked as Ex.D7 and the schedule do not describe that on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, I find the plaintiff Chidananda in O.S.No.22/1982 has made out a case and his suit should have been decreed. Per contra, plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab in O.S.No.31/1982 has failed to make out a case and his suit should have been dismissed. 31. Per contra, plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab in O.S.No.31/1982 has failed to make out a case and his suit should have been dismissed. 31. The findings given by the trial Court and confirmed by the first Appellate Court as well in OS No.31/1982 are infirm, irregular, arbitrary and perverse and they are liable to be set aside which is being done through this judgment. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 32. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Both the appeals in R.S.A.No.618/2000 and 619/2000 are allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 12-1-2000 passed in R.A.No.75/1989 and R.A.No.23/1989 are hereby set aside. Consequently, judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/1982 and O.S.No.31/1982 are set aside. (iii) In the result, suit filed by plaintiff-Chidananda for declaration of title and permanent injunction in OS No.22/1982 is decreed and the suit filed by plaintiff-Abdul Subhan Sab for permanent injunction filed in O.S.No.31/1982 is dismissed.