JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs questioning the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.5/2014 by the first appellate Court wherein the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is dismissed and the counter claim filed by respondent-defendant is partly allowed restraining the appellants-plaintiffs from dispossessing the defendant from the suit schedule property without having recourse to the due process of law. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The original plaintiff filed a bare suit for injunction by specifically contending that he has acquired valid right and title pursuant to the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal, Siruguppa, in respect of the suit land. The original plaintiff contended that he is the absolute owner and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The original plaintiff also contended that he has developed the suit land by investing huge amount. The defendant who is the owner of the adjoining land was often insisting the original plaintiff to sell his land and accept his intention to purchase the land. The original plaintiff also contended that defendant filed a suit by creating documents in O.S.No.65/1997 which was disposed of on 22.12.2006. The present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff by specifically alleging that defendant compelled the original plaintiff to hand over vacant possession within fifteen days and that defendant attempted to dispossess the original plaintiff with the aid of rowdy elements on 12.01.2007 and 16.01.2007 and therefore, the present suit was filed. On receipt of summons, defendant appeared and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendant specifically contended that without seeking the relief of declaration and possession, the present suit is not maintainable. He is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land since 31.7.1976 pursuant to the agreement of management executed by the original plaintiff. The defendant also contended that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective claims. The original plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and the documents were also produced vide Exs.P1 to 17. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective claims. The original plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 and the documents were also produced vide Exs.P1 to 17. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and produced voluminous documents vide Exs.D1 to 149. The trial Court having assessed oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding that though respondent has produced voluminous documents, however, the said documents would not prove that defendant is in lawful possession. The trial Court was also of the view that the record of rights produced by the original plaintiff have got presumptive value and the same would clearly establish that plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court was also of the view that the tax paid receipts at Exs.P12 to 14 being public documents would clearly indicate that it is the plaintiffs who are in lawful possession over the suit land. The trial Court was also of the view that if at all the defendant is in possession, his name ought to have been reflected in the record of rights in column No.12(2). If really the defendant is in possession his name ought to have been mutated in the cultivators column pertaining to the record of rights. Therefore, the trial Court placing reliance on Exs.P1 to 10 and also the record of rights at Ex.P16 has proceeded to decree the suit by holding that plaintiffs are in lawful possession and interference is proved and the consequently, the suit came to be decreed granting perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the judgment and decree of the trial Court suffers from serious perversity and that the voluminous documents produced by the defendant is not even discussed and examined by the trial Court. The appellate Court has found fault with the trial Court in not even discussing the rebuttal evidence which is placed on record by defendant. The appellate Court has found fault with the trial Court in not even discussing the rebuttal evidence which is placed on record by defendant. The appellate Court having taken note of Ex.D145 which is the agreement dated 31.07.1976 coupled with the cross-examination of the plaintiff, who is examined as P.W.1, found that plaintiff has admitted in unequivocal terms that he permitted the defendant to reside in the suit schedule property by putting up a shed. Further, plaintiff has also admitted that he also permitted the defendant to irrigate his property and grow crops in the suit land. He has admitted in unequivocal terms that the management of the suit land was in fact entrusted to the defendant. The appellate Court has also minutely taken note of the further evidence of plaintiff who has conveniently pleaded his ignorance in regard to various transactions between the original plaintiff and defendant and adverse inference was also drawn against the plaintiff as P.W.2 who was examined on behalf of the plaintiff did not come forward to offer for cross-examination. The first appellate Court was also of the view that since the original plaintiff was the title holder of the suit land, it was quite obvious to find his name in the revenue records and after his death, the present appellants-plaintiffs' name was mutated as legal representatives. The voluminous documentary evidence which would dislodge and outweigh the documents placed on record by the plaintiff was totally discarded by the trial Court without assigning any reasons and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant. It is against this divergent findings, the present regular second appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant. Perused the judgments under challenge and also voluminous documents which are placed on record. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the cross-examination of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, the original plaintiff has admitted in unequivocal terms that he has permitted the defendant to reside in the suit schedule property and he has admitted in unequivocal terms that he has authorised the defendant to cultivate and grow crops. He has also admitted in unequivocal terms that the management of the suit land was entrusted to the defendant. He has also admitted in unequivocal terms that the management of the suit land was entrusted to the defendant. He has also admitted in unequivocal terms that possession was handed over to defendant to an extent of eight acres of land so as to enable him to irrigate the land and grow crops. If this evidence tendered in the cross-examination is examined in the context of Ex.D145, the entire controversy as to who was in lawful possession as on the date of the filing of the suit would stands resolved. On perusal of Ex.D145, which was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of defendant would clearly establish that the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit land under Ex.D145. This agreement is dated 31.7.1976. On perusal of the same, the defendant who is the agent is permitted to invest his own moneys for supervision, for establishment and conduct all agricultural operations. Para 5 of the agreement clearly indicates that the agency is irrevocable. It is also agreed that the agent would be entitled to debit all expenditures incurred by him and the proceeds shall be subject to the charges to the extent of moneys so expended. At para 7, it is agreed that after deduction of investment, the net income shall be divided among principal and agent. Under the agreement, the original plaintiff has virtually given authorization to manage the affairs of the suit land, develop, invest, harvest and thereafter to divide the net profit in equal share. If Ex.D145 is taken into consideration, then, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the first appellate Court on possession is based on legal rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant. 6. The plaintiffs are banking heavily on Ex.P17 which is the judgment rendered by this Court in RFA.No.183/2007 c/w Crob.No.16/2007. The said first appeal arises out of O.S.No.65/1997 which was filed by the present respondent-defendant seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract. The defendant claimed that the original plaintiff has executed an agreement on 18.6.1987 and has received a sum of Rs.2,96,727/-. The said suit was partly decreed granting relief of refund directing the original plaintiff to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appeal filed by the original plaintiff i.e. ancestor of the present appellants herein came to be allowed and the order of the trial Court directing refund of money was also set aside. The said suit was partly decreed granting relief of refund directing the original plaintiff to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The appeal filed by the original plaintiff i.e. ancestor of the present appellants herein came to be allowed and the order of the trial Court directing refund of money was also set aside. If this judgment is taken into consideration, this Court would find that the judgment rendered in RFA.No.183/2007 would have absolutely no bearing on the present lis between the parties. That was a case where the defendant was asserting his right based on an agreement and accordingly, the suit for specific performance came to be filed. In the said proceedings, the incidental question as to who is in possession was not at all the subject-matter. Therefore, the contention of the appellants herein that the appeal filed by the original plaintiff in RFA.No.183/2007 came to be allowed would not come to the aid of the appellants herein insofar as controversy in regard to possession is concerned. The receipts which are produced by defendant vide Exs.D2 to 15 would further strengthen the claim of the defendant. On perusal of Exs.D2 to 15, it is clearly evident that the original plaintiff i.e. the father of the appellants herein has periodically acknowledged the payments made by defendant and receipts have been issued. These documents at Exs.D2 to 15 coupled with Exs.D145 and the admission made by the original plaintiff in the cross-examination would clearly establish the possession of defendant over the suit lands since 1976. 7. Therefore, if this clinching rebuttal evidence is examined, then I am of the view that the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the first appellate Court is based on legal evidence placed on record by the defendant. The rebuttal evidence would outweigh the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and would virtually dislodge the plaintiffs' case. The trial Court has not at all taken into consideration the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by defendant. Though the trial Court has in a casual way recorded a finding that the voluminous documents are placed by defendant, has however, for the reasons best known it has not even discussed about those documents. The trial Court has also not assigned any reasons for discarding the rebuttal evidence. Though the trial Court has in a casual way recorded a finding that the voluminous documents are placed by defendant, has however, for the reasons best known it has not even discussed about those documents. The trial Court has also not assigned any reasons for discarding the rebuttal evidence. The appreciation of the evidence on record by the trial Court appears to be totally one sided and the rebuttal evidence is totally ignored without assigning any reasons. The judgment of the first appellate Court, in fact, indicates compliance of mandatory provisions of Rules 30 and 31 of Order XLI of CPC. The first appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of the trial Court in regard to possession as the same was contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities or illegalities in the judgment under challenge. No substantial question of arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.