JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by Prl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S. No.30/1992 which was confirmed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Magadi (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. No.46/2017. Both the Courts dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the suit properties by adverse possession. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs’ father (Ramoji Rao) and defendants’ father (Yalloji Rao). It is claimed that the father of the plaintiffs executed a relinquishment deed dated 05.12.1952 in favour of the father of the defendants. However, the possession of the suit properties was not delivered even after the execution of the relinquishment deed and that the plaintiffs’ father, mother and the plaintiffs continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Thereafter the father of the plaintiffs’ died on 13.03.1981 and the plaintiffs and their mother continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs claimed that they were growing ragi, paddy and other allied crops in the suit properties and that they were in possession of the suit properties for more than 20 years and thereby had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession. They alleged that the defendants were strangers to the suit properties and they had no subsisting right, title or interest therein. Nonetheless, the defendants colluding with the revenue officials had managed to get their names entered in the revenue records. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants denied their title over the suit properties and hence sought for a declaration that they had perfected their title to the suit properties by adverse possession and also sought perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 4. Initially, the defendants No.1, 6 and 7 appeared before the Court and filed a Memo on 10.03.1992 stating that they have no objection to decree the suit. 4. Initially, the defendants No.1, 6 and 7 appeared before the Court and filed a Memo on 10.03.1992 stating that they have no objection to decree the suit. Thereafter the defendant No.1 appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit stating that he had not consented to decree the suit and that the defendants No.7 and 9 had falsely impersonated him before the Trial Court. The defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs were residing at Bangalore in Lingadevarapalya which was far away from the suit properties. Further he claimed that their father was enjoying the suit properties after the execution of the release deed in the year 1952. He denied the contention that the plaintiffs were in adverse possession of the suit properties. 5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the issues and set down the case for trial. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-35. Two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. The legal representative of defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-47. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs did not prove that they were in possession of the suit properties after the execution of the relinquishment deed. The Trial Court noted from the revenue records that it was the defendants who were in possession of the suit properties and thus dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, plaintiffs filed R.A. No.46/2017. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration : i. Does the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owners of the suit schedule properties? ii. Whether the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule properties as on the date of the institution of the suit? iii. Does the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove alleged interference by the defendants? iv. Whether the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs sought for? v. Whether Hon’ble trial Court is justified in passing the judgment which is impugned in this regular appeal? vi. iii. Does the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove alleged interference by the defendants? iv. Whether the learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs sought for? v. Whether Hon’ble trial Court is justified in passing the judgment which is impugned in this regular appeal? vi. Does the judgment of the Hon’ble trial Court calls for any interference by this Court? vii. What order or decree? 8. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were in adverse possession of the suit properties. It also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit and hence dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the present Regular Second Appeal is filed. 10. The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs had earlier filed O.S. No.16/1981 for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit properties against defendant No.1. He submitted that Ex.D-40 was the written statement filed by defendant No.1 in the said suit where he admitted that he had executed an agreement dated 07.04.1953 in favour of the father of plaintiffs, permitting him to enjoy the yield realized from the suit properties for his maintenance till his death. He, therefore, submitted that the defendants have admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit schedule properties and that there was no contra evidence to establish that the possession was recovered back by the defendants. 11. He also submitted that the suit in O.S. No.16/1981 was dismissed as it was not prosecuted effectively. However, it is submitted that the plaintiffs had continued in possession, and therefore, the Trial Court must have decreed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants. 12. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court makes one point clear, namely, that the plaintiffs and defendants were claiming independent title in respect of the suit properties by virtue of the relinquishment deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the father of the defendants. 12. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court makes one point clear, namely, that the plaintiffs and defendants were claiming independent title in respect of the suit properties by virtue of the relinquishment deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the father of the defendants. A perusal of the relinquishment deed as noted by the Trial Court, indicates that the possession of the property relinquished was delivered to the father of the defendants. It may be that as per Ex.D-40 the plaintiffs’ father was permitted to utilise the usufructs from the suit properties for his maintenance till his death. However, that itself would not create any interest in the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs cannot claim that their father and later they were in possession of the suit schedule properties. Since the plaintiffs did not establish the requisites for proving a case of adverse possession, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the claim. Since there is nothing on record to establish that the plaintiffs were in possession of suit schedule properties, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were equally justified in dismissing the suit as regards the relief of injunction. There is no merit in this appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration.