JUDGMENT : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. 1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the first defendant questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit land and consequently, granting permanent injunction against the defendants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the family tree furnished by defendants' counsel, which is as under: Ramegowda Kalamma (Plaintiff) Timma alias Timme gowda (Husband) Doddamma Chandramma (D1) (D2) (D3) (D4) 4. Plaintiff filed a suit by claiming that she is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property which was originally owned by her husband namely Thimma alias Thimmegowda. She further pleaded that after the death of her husband, she has inherited the suit property and the defendants have no manner of right and title much less possession over the suit schedule property. She specifically alleged that defendants have high handedly tried to interfere with her possession. Plaintiff also pleaded that defendant No. 1 has high handedly got her name mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction: (a) First defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. She claimed that she is the adopted daughter of plaintiff and her husband Thimma and therefore, contended that she has inherited the suit schedule property and claimed to be in exclusive possession. (b) Plaintiff to substantiate her claim examined herself as PW-1 and one independent witness as PW-2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to 12. Defendants examined three witnesses as DWs. 1 to 3 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 36. (c) The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence though held that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her title, however, held that plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. Consequently, suit was dismissed. (d) The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence however took a divergent view insofar as the dispute relating to possession is concerned. Consequently, suit was dismissed. (d) The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence however took a divergent view insofar as the dispute relating to possession is concerned. The Appellate Court was of the view that it is not in dispute that suit land was originally owned by plaintiff's husband. The Appellate Court held that after the death of original owner Thimmegowda his widow i.e. the present plaintiff has inherited the suit land. If first defendant has failed to establish that she is the adopted daughter, Appellate Court was of the view that there are absolutely no materials indicating as to how the first defendant acquired possession over the suit land. Appellate Court declined to accept the entries in the revenue records. It is in this background, Appellate Court held that the Trial Court erred in basing its conclusion on possession by placing reliance on revenue records. Therefore, Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit. The present second appeal is filed by first defendant. 5. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 has admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in allowing the appeal of the plaintiff by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, ignoring that the revenue records relating to the suit property are standing in the name of the 1st defendant as on the date of the suit, which have got presumption regarding possession, is sustainable in law? 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff for declaration without seeking the relief of possession is maintainable?” 6. Learned counsel appearing for first defendant contends that the adoption is not at all disputed by the plaintiff. Heavy reliance is placed on Ex.D31 which is a mutation copy indicating that there is a reference that defendant No. 1 was adopted by plaintiff and her husband. The learned counsel for first defendant would also place reliance on oral evidence of DWs. 2 and 3 and contend that the independent witnesses have also spoken about the adoption of first defendant by plaintiff and her husband. The learned counsel for first defendant would also place reliance on oral evidence of DWs. 2 and 3 and contend that the independent witnesses have also spoken about the adoption of first defendant by plaintiff and her husband. Heavy reliance is also placed on revenue records to demonstrate that suit schedule property is standing in the name of first defendant. Learned counsel would further contend that plea of adoption was raised in the written statement and in absence of denial to the counter claim, the same stands admitted and it is a trite law that admitted facts need not be proved. Reliance is placed on judgment rendered by the High Court of Mysuru in the case of Rudrawwa vs. Balawwa, 1967 (1) Mys. L.J. 71 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs. vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1242 . Placing reliance on these two judgments, the learned counsel has contended that the factum of adoption raised in written statement is not countered by the plaintiff and therefore, it amounts to admission. Therefore, he would contend that since adoption is admitted no evidence is produced. 7. He would further vehemently argue and contend that plaintiff is not in possession and therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1. Aralappa vs. Jagannath and Others, AIR 2007 KAR 91 2. Vinay Krishna vs. Keshav Chandra and Another, AIR 1993 SC 957 3. Ram Saran and Another vs. Smt. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685 Placing reliance on these three judgments, he would contend that failure on the part of the plaintiff in not seeking the relief of possession, suit is not maintainable. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Aralappa's case to demonstrate that suit for declaration without seeking the relief of possession is not maintainable. He would conclude his arguments by contending that the Appellate Court has not applied its mind and rebuttal evidence is not examined. The finding on possession recorded by the Appellate Court is contrary to the rebuttal evidence on record and therefore, he would contend that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court has to be answered in the affirmative and suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. The finding on possession recorded by the Appellate Court is contrary to the rebuttal evidence on record and therefore, he would contend that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court has to be answered in the affirmative and suit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that the Trial Court has rightly answered Issue No. 3 relating to adoption in the negative and therefore, the finding on adoption has gone unchallenged. If the plea of adoption is discarded, he would point out that first defendant has no semblance of right over the suit schedule property. He would contend that source of possession is not explained. He would further argue and contend that Ex.D31 which is a mutation extract has no evidentiary value and the same cannot be looked into. When the mutation was disputed by filing an appeal by the plaintiff, Ex.D31 would not come to the aid of first defendant. He would straight away take this Court to the cross-examination of DW-1 who happens to be the son of first defendant. He would point that DW-1 has admitted in unequivocal terms that plaintiff is in possession. On these set of grounds, he would contend that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are liable to be answered in the negative and the second appeal has to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for first defendant and learned counsel appearing of plaintiff. I have perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the judgment rendered by both the Courts. 10. The suit schedule property were admittedly owned by the husband of plaintiff. After his death, plaintiff being his widow has inherited the suit schedule property and therefore, she has acquired right and title over the suit schedule property. First defendant is claiming that she was taken in adoption by plaintiff's husband namely Thimmegowda. At Para-7 of the written statement she claims that pursuant to adoption, adoption deed was also executed. Therefore, first defendant claims that she has inherited the suit schedule property pursuant to adoption. 11. It is quite strange to note that except bald allegations in the written statement, defendant has neither furnished the details relating to adoption nor has produced the adoption deed. Except relying on mutation entry vide Ex.D31, there is absolutely no evidence to show that she was adopted by Thimmegowda. 11. It is quite strange to note that except bald allegations in the written statement, defendant has neither furnished the details relating to adoption nor has produced the adoption deed. Except relying on mutation entry vide Ex.D31, there is absolutely no evidence to show that she was adopted by Thimmegowda. The contention of first defendant that since adoption is admitted by the plaintiff, the same stands proved is totally misconceived. The contention of the first defendant is that the counter claim made by the first defendant is not disputed by the plaintiff. On perusal of the material on record, this Court would find that there is no counter claim set up by first defendant. In the written statement, a plea is raised by contending that first defendant is the adopted daughter of Thimmegowda and plaintiff. It is more than trite that merely because the plaintiff has not filed the rejoinder to the said pleadings at Para-7, the same does not amount to admission as claimed by the first defendant. The contention of the first defendant that there is also a counter claim is also misconceived. First defendant has not sought the relief of declaration which would amount to a counter claim. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no admission on the part of the plaintiff in regard to alleged adoption. 12. If first defendant's claim that she is the adopted daughter is discarded, then there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that first defendant is in possession of suit land. When possessory rights are asserted by a party against a true owner, the source has to be disclosed. The name of first defendant is mutated to the revenue records on the premise that she is the adopted daughter. The mutation is not supported by an adoption deed. Therefore, the mutation of first defendant's name in the revenue records under Ex.D31 and consequent entries in the revenue records based on the said disputed mutation does not create possessory right in favour of the first defendant who has no semblance of right in the suit schedule property. 13. First defendant taking undue advantage of old age of plaintiff has virtually made an attempt to grab the properties owned by the plaintiff who is a old lady. 13. First defendant taking undue advantage of old age of plaintiff has virtually made an attempt to grab the properties owned by the plaintiff who is a old lady. If plaintiff's title to the suit schedule property stands established and in absence of clinching rebuttal evidence indicating on what basis the first defendant is asserting possessory rights, it has to be presumed that plaintiff, who is the absolute owner is in lawful possession. The cardinal rule being that possession follows title, the presumption that possession follows title clearly arises in the present case on hand as first defendant has failed to establish that she is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property. 14. If first defendant has no semblance of right over the suit schedule property, then the assertion on the part of the first defendant in disputing the title of plaintiff and at the same time asserting exclusive title and also possession amounts to a wrongful act. Therefore, the general purpose of injunction is to restrain undue exercise of right of first defendant over the suit schedule property. The material on record indicates that first defendant is high handedly trying to dispossess the plaintiff who is an old lady. Therefore, the relief of permanent injunction in the present case on hand is absolutely necessary to prevent the threatened wrongs at the hands of first defendant. 15. It is in this background, this Court would find that the Appellate Court has exercised discretion judiciously while granting permanent injunction in favour of first plaintiff having held that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has superficially placed heavy reliance on the revenue records in the present case on hand without examining the gravity of injury that would be caused to the plaintiff in the event permanent injunction is declined. Revenue entries though have got presumptive value, but the Courts while placing reliance on revenue records are required to be cautious and analyse all the relevant factors. If first defendant's total reliance is on mutation and if the source on which the mutation is effected is found to be not in accordance with law, then the mutation and consequent entries in the revenue records have no evidentiary value and the same has to be out rightly discarded. This is where the Trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the material on record. 16. This is where the Trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the material on record. 16. The finding of the Trial Court while dealing with Issue No. 1 relating to possession suffers from perversity. The revenue entries are not conclusive evidence and the said documents cannot be looked into to ascertain as to who is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that plaintiff is not in physical possession of the suit schedule property is palpably erroneous. Ex.D31 mutation does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961. It is a trite law that when a party acquires right in an immovable property, he/she can report to the jurisdictional revenue officer to effect changes based on a registered document indicating transfer of title. Ex.D1 mutation is not based on any registered document. Therefore, the consequent entry of first defendant in the revenue records does not satisfy the ingredients of the above said Sections of the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, there is no proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has independently assessed the entire material on record and has rightly recorded a finding that plaintiff having succeeded in establishing her title has also proved that she is in possession of suit schedule property. The judgment rendered by the Appellate Court is based on legal evidence let in by plaintiff. 17. The plaintiff has not only succeeded in establishing her title but has also proved that she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property. First defendant's claim in regard to adoption as well as possession is not at all substantiated. Therefore, the first substantial question of law is answered in affirmative and second substantial question of law does not survive for consideration in view of the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.