JUDGMENT : The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant who is questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below in granting injunction and thereby restraining the defendant herein from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. The subject matter of the suit is site No.40 situated at Ward No.20, Tumakuru Town measuring 30x40 feet. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that suit site is part of an approved layout allotted to one Smt. Narasahanumakka W/o late Chikkarangaiah under resolution dated 25.01.1979. The plaintiff further pleaded that Narasahanumakka who was the absolute owner of suit site sold the same in favour of her daughter Rangamma W/o Gangahanumaiah. The said Rangamma who acquired right and title under registered sale deed gifted the property to the present plaintiff who is none other than the daughter of the said Rangamma. The plaintiff contended that the defendant has purchased site No.42 which is situated towards Eastern side of the suit schedule property. The present suit for injunction is filed alleging that defendant tried to encroach by digging the foundation on the Eastern side of the suit schedule property by attempting to encroach over the suit schedule property. 4. The defendant, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant in her written statement however pleaded her ignorance in regard to allotment of site No.40 in favour of Narasahanumakka. However, defendant claimed that she is the absolute owner of site No.42 and further contended that she has constructed house by obtaining license from the competent authority. The defendant claimed that the width of the road is increased by 20 feet and therefore, CMC, Tumakuru has virtually utilized site Nos.40 and 41 and has issued a modified plan and therefore, seriously disputed the existence of site Nos.40 and 41. 5. The plaintiff to substantiate her claim let in evidence by examining three witnesses and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-20. While defendant examined herself as DW.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-8. 6. The Trial Court having referred to the clinching evidence vide Exs.P-2 to P-14 found that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her lawful possession over the suit site bearing No.40. While defendant examined herself as DW.1 and adduced documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-8. 6. The Trial Court having referred to the clinching evidence vide Exs.P-2 to P-14 found that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her lawful possession over the suit site bearing No.40. The Trial Court while taking note of the approved layout plan in Sy.No.302/1 vide Ex.P-17 has come to conclusion that situation of plot Nos.40, 41 and 42 are clearly depicted in the approved layout and therefore, the contention of defendant that site Nos.40 and 41 are not in existence was out-rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court while considering the rebuttal evidence however declined to entertain the defence set up by the defendant that a portion measuring 20 feet in site No.40 was utilized for the purpose of widening road. Referring to the title documents and also possession certificate, Trial Court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving her lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit and interference having been proved, proceeded to dismiss the suit. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. 8. The Appellate Court being the final fact finding authority has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court has also meticulously examined the approved layout plan as per Ex.P-17 coupled with Ex.D-8 sketch prepared by one H. Hanumaiah claiming to be an official of Tumakuru Urban Development Authority. Relying on endorsement vide Ex.P-19, Appellate Court has come to conclusion that the alleged sketch furnished by the defendant vide Ex.D-8 is not approved by the authority. The Appellate Court was also of the view that the same runs contrary to the approved layout plan vide Ex.P-17. The Appellate Court has also relied on Ex.P-17 and has recorded a categorical finding that existence of site Nos.40 and 41 stands proved and therefore, the Appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the Court below. It is in this background, the Appellate Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 9. These concurrent findings are challenged by the defendant. 10. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2017 was pleased to admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “1. It is in this background, the Appellate Court has proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 9. These concurrent findings are challenged by the defendant. 10. This Court vide order dated 12.01.2017 was pleased to admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not looked into the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D7, Ex.D2 and Ex.P1 in order to consider the distinctiveness of distinguishing characters of Site Nos.42 and 40, as claimed by the parties? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and also the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC ignoring the legal necessity of those documents and circumstances of the case?” 11. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant reiterating the grounds as well as substantial questions of law framed by this Court would vehemently argue and contend that the description of the property covered under the sale deed dated 03.12.1997 vide Ex.D-7 does not tally with other title documents. He would also vehemently argue and contend that plaintiff has consciously not produced title documents of her mother. He would further point out that it is the defendant who has produced which is marked at Ex.D-7. Referring to the boundaries in Ex.D-7 and other title documents, he would contend that the boundaries would not tally and therefore, he would contend that the existence of site No.40 is in itself doubtful and this aspect is not dealt by the courts below. The grievance of the defendant before this Court is that both the Courts have mechanically rejected the document relied on by the defendant. He would also vehemently argue and contend that the additional evidence that was sought to be produced before the Appellate Court is also not dealt properly and therefore, on account of hyper technical approach adopted by the Appellate Court, defendant has suffered injustice at the hands of the Appellate Court. 12. Learned counsel would contend that in fact Rangamma had no title to the suit schedule property. Referring to the boundaries, he would contend that the property which was purchased by Rangamma from her mother under Ex.D-7 and the one that was conveyed to the plaintiff under gift deed vide Ex.P-1 are totally different. 12. Learned counsel would contend that in fact Rangamma had no title to the suit schedule property. Referring to the boundaries, he would contend that the property which was purchased by Rangamma from her mother under Ex.D-7 and the one that was conveyed to the plaintiff under gift deed vide Ex.P-1 are totally different. It is further contended that the property referred to under Ex.P-1 is not in fact in respect of suit schedule site No.40 and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. He would vehemently argue and contend that that evidentiary value of Ex.D-7 is not properly appreciated by both the Courts and therefore, both the Courts erred in holding that plaintiff has acquired title to the property on the basis of Ex.P-1 without examining that the same is contrary to Ex.D-7. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff countering the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendant would contend that Ex.P-17 is an approved layout plant. He would contend that the approved layout plan would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. The rights of respective allottees have to be decided only by referring to this approved layout. Referring to para 5 of the written statement, he would further contend that entire controversy in regard to lawful possession and title over the suit schedule property stands resolved in terms of defence set up at para 5 of the written statement. He would contend that defendant has admitted the title and possession of plaintiff. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that at the instance of defendant, this Court was pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner has submitted his report and sketch. Referring to the sketch, he would point out that existence of three sites are clearly depicted in the sketch furnished by the Court Commissioner. Therefore, he would contend that the sketch furnished by the Court Commissioner would clearly falsify the defence set up by the defendant that property owned by the plaintiff is not in existence on account of widening of the road. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by the Courts below. 15. The plaintiff is asserting that she is the owner of site No.40 situated in Sy.No.302/1, Tumakuru Town. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by the Courts below. 15. The plaintiff is asserting that she is the owner of site No.40 situated in Sy.No.302/1, Tumakuru Town. To establish her title, plaintiff has produced the gift deed executed by her mother Rangamma dated 13.10.2003 vide Ex.P-1. The approved layout plan is produced at Ex.P-17. On perusal of Ex.P-17, it is clearly evident that site No.40 is very much in existence. The defendant claims that site No.40 owned by plaintiff and adjoining site No.41 were utilized by CMC, Tumakuru for widening of the road. Having taken a defence in that regard, the same is not substantiated. Though defendant has made a feeble attempt in placing reliance on Ex.D-7 which is the registered sale deed executed by the original owner Narasuhanumakka in favour of her daughter namely Rangamma to demonstrate that boundaries do not tally, this Court is of the view that inconsistencies in the boundaries in the sale deed and gift deed would not in itself take away the title of plaintiff. The discrepancies found in the boundaries of sale deed and the subsequent gift deed would not have any bearing on the actual lis between the parties. It is nobody’s case that site No.40 is not in existence. The defendant also admits that existence of site. Her defence is that site No.40 is being utilized for formation of road and therefore, has placed reliance on Ex.D-8. 16. Both the Courts have dealt with Ex.D-8 and the said document is not at all accepted by both the Courts. Taking note of the endorsement vide Ex.P-19, both the Courts have come to conclusion that this Ex.D-8 is not approved by any authority and therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.D-8. If Ex.D-8 is discarded, there is absolutely no evidence let in by the defendant to demonstrate that site owned by plaintiff was utilized for widening of the road. The registered gift deed coupled with encumbrance certificate vide Ex.P-8, building plan vide Ex.P-14, building commencement certificate vide Ex.P-9 and copy of approved plan vide Ex.P-17 would clearly establish the title of plaintiff as well as lawful possession over the suit schedule property. 17. The registered gift deed coupled with encumbrance certificate vide Ex.P-8, building plan vide Ex.P-14, building commencement certificate vide Ex.P-9 and copy of approved plan vide Ex.P-17 would clearly establish the title of plaintiff as well as lawful possession over the suit schedule property. 17. If the location of site No.40 in approved layout is clearly depicted, then the boundaries mentioned in Ex.D-7, Ex.D-2 and Ex.P-1, even if found to be distinct and inconsistent with each other cannot take away the title and right of plaintiff over site No.40. There may be some inconsistencies in the boundaries referred to in the gift deed vide Ex.P-1 and registered sale deed vide Ex.D-7. This inconsistency will not take away the fact that site No.40 is part and parcel of approved layout vide Ex.P-17. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court needs to be answered in the negative. Any inconsistencies in the boundaries will not create a right in favour of defendant. Similarly, said inconsistencies will not take away the right of the plaintiff in site No.40. The additional evidence which was sought to be produced before the Appellate Court is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of actual controversy between the parties. 18. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court is answered in the negative. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.