JUDGMENT : This appeal was filed by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No.222/1998 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 19.04.2010 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.222/1998 and the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.3/2010. Both the Courts held that the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property as against defendants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against defendant No.1 and his brothers, namely, defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.14 (new No.78) measuring 04 Acres situate at Bargur village, Sompura hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was granted to her motherin-law, Smt. Puttamma, as per the grant certificate dated 03/06/1975 and thereafter she executed a Will dated 16.12.1976. The plaintiff further claimed that after the death of Smt. Puttamma in the year 1977, she became the owner of the suit property and thereafter, the revenue documents were transferred to her name. She contended that the grant in favour of Smt. Puttamma was challenged by defendant No.1 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, which was dismissed and an appeal preferred therefrom before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Secretary of Revenue Department. Then the Government by order dated 10.12.1979, cancelled the grant in favour of Smt. Puttamma. This order was challenged by the plaintiff before this Court in W.P.No.1361/1980. In the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 24.03.1988, quashed the order dated 10.12.1979. Pursuant to the said order, defendant No.1 in the present suit filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner to take action against the plaintiff under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 15.04.1989, inter alia cancelled the grant made in favour of the mother-in-law of the plaintiff and directed the land to be resumed to the Government and the same was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 03.08.1994. The said orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit before this Court in W.P. No.32940/1994. The said orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit before this Court in W.P. No.32940/1994. This Court in terms of the order dated 24.03.1998, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 15.04.1989 and 03.08.1994 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that the defendants had no manner of right, title or interest but were interfering with her possession in the suit property and thus, sought perpetual injunction. 4. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit and claimed that Smt. Puttamma was never in possession of the suit property. They also denied the execution of a Will by Smt. Puttamma in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they were in possession of the property for more than forty years and they are living on the suit properties. They further contended that their possession was evidenced by the revenue records which stood in the name of defendant No.1. 5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following Issues: “1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant? 3) What decree or Order?” 6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. She also examined PWs.2 and 3. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D1 to D12. 7. The Trial Court held that the documents marked by the plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and that the plaintiff had acquired the same in terms of the Will of Smt. Puttamma dated 16.12.1976. In so far as the interference with the possession of the plaintiff is concerned, the Trial Court held that the contentions urged by the plaintiff proved that the defendants were interfering with her possession and therefore, the Trial Court decreed the suit. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and the suit as against him had abated. The suit was proceeded only against defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed R.A. No.3/2010. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and the suit as against him had abated. The suit was proceeded only against defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed R.A. No.3/2010. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the learned counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration: “1) Whether the approach of the Trial Court in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff is proper? 2) Whether the interference by this Court is required? 3) What order ?” 9. The First Appellate Court held that the requirement of proof of Will of Smt. Puttamma cannot be pressed into service by the defendants, as they had no caveatable interest in the right of Smt. Puttamma. The First Appellate Court held that since the suit was for bare injunction, the question of proof of Will need not be gone into. The First Appellate Court held that the suit property was granted in favour of Smt. Puttamma and thereafter, the name of defendant No.1 was rounded off in the revenue records and the name of the plaintiff was inserted in column No.9 of the RTC extract (Ex.P6). The First Appellate Court also took into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.32940/1994 whereby the grant in favour of Smt. Puttamma was upheld and which was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.3070/1998 disposed of on 28.08.1998. Having regard to the above facts, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed the present second appeal. 11. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 died and their respective legal representatives were brought on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant No.4 contended that the appellants and defendant No.1 were in possession of the suit property from the year 1964 and onwards and that defendant No.1 was also granted land in Sy. No.14. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant No.4 contended that the appellants and defendant No.1 were in possession of the suit property from the year 1964 and onwards and that defendant No.1 was also granted land in Sy. No.14. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff in the garb of obtaining an order of injunction in respect of the suit property was in fact attempting to lay a claim to the property that was granted to defendant No.1. 13. Appellants have also filed an application in I.A. No.1/2014 for production of additional document to place on record the certified copy of grant certificate issued in favour of defendant No.1 and contend that the observation of the First Appellate Court that the defendants had not placed on record any proof regarding the grant of land in favour of defendant No.1 deserves to be set aside. He also contended that the suit as against defendant No.1 had abated and therefore, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 were members of a joint family along with defendant No.1, who had an undivided interest in the suit property and therefore, the suit against them was also liable to be dismissed as it was a joint cause of action. He also contended that a suit for bare injunction was not maintainable in the face of the claim of the defendants that defendants were also granted an extent of 04 Acres in Sy No.14. 14. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for appellants. 15. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.3070/1998, the grant made in favour of Smt. Puttamma has attained finality. Therefore, the defendants cannot contend that the land granted to Smt. Puttamma overlapped with the land granted to defendant No.1. Even if there was an overlap, this ground was available for the defendants to urge when defendant No.1 challenged the grant made in favour of Smt. Puttamma. This Court in W.P. No.32940/1994 specifically held in paragraph No.7 as under: “7. Therefore, the defendants cannot contend that the land granted to Smt. Puttamma overlapped with the land granted to defendant No.1. Even if there was an overlap, this ground was available for the defendants to urge when defendant No.1 challenged the grant made in favour of Smt. Puttamma. This Court in W.P. No.32940/1994 specifically held in paragraph No.7 as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the grant made in favour of Smt. Puttamma was questioned by the 4th respondent in an appeal on the ground that Puttamma was not an unauthorized occupant of the land in question and the same was in his possession and enjoyment as an earlier grantee and the said contention was negatived by the Tribunal and the grant made in favour of Puttamma was affirmed. Since the said order was not called in question by the 4th respondent, it is not open to him to initiate another proceedings on the same reasons requesting the authorities to cancel the grant in exercise of their power under a different provision. The order of cancellation made by the Government was quashed by this Court for want of jurisdiction of the State Government as it did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the grant as such power vested only with the granting authority. The granting authority did not initiate the proceedings on its own but at the instance of the fourth respondent who had already lost his case before the competent appellate authority.” Therefore, the legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.2 and 3 and defendant No.4 cannot now contend that the grant made in favour of Smt. Puttamma was either not legal or against any provision of law. They also cannot contend that Smt.Puttamma was not in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff had proved the antecedent title of Smt. Puttamma to the suit schedule property and the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction as against the defendants. The contention that the suit must have abated against the defendants 2, 3 and 4 is not acceptable as the suit was for the relief of bare injunction. The contention that the suit must have abated against the defendants 2, 3 and 4 is not acceptable as the suit was for the relief of bare injunction. While I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments and decrees of both the Courts, but yet the grant certificate made in favour of defendant No.1 which is sought to be placed on record in I.A. No.1/2014 cannot be ignored as this grant certificate in favour of defendant No.1 is not annulled or set aside in the manner known to law. Thus, if the appellants are able to demonstrate that the grant of land made in favour of defendant No.1 related to some other property, other than what is granted to Smt. Puttamma, they may do so and protect their possession of the property that is granted to them. In so far as the present case is concerned, since the plaintiff had proved that she was in possession of the suit property as a beneficiary under the Will of Smt. Puttamma, which is evidenced by revenue documents, interference with the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is not warranted. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. If the appellants are interested to protect their possession in respect of any other property that is granted to them, other than the suit property, they are at liberty to do so. In view of the above, I.A. No.3/2014 for stay is rejected.