JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 27/7/2017, passed in R.A.No.15/2012, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K. reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 5/3/2012 passed in O.S.No.65/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, D.K. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of this Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.65/1999 is that 'A' schedule properties were the chalageni leasehold properties of the father of the plaintiff under defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff had executed chalageni chit in favour of defendant No.1. After the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the father of the plaintiff filed declaration before the Land Tribunal, Bantwal in TNC No.9504/74-75 and the Land Tribunal, as per its order dtd. 18/4/1979 conferred occupancy right in favour of his father in respect of schedule properties. Ever since then, his father was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same by effecting vast improvement till his death. The documents were also transferred in favour of the father of the plaintiff and he was paying the tax and enjoying the same as absolute owner. Formerly item No.1 of the schedule property was bailu field and major portion of bailu field were capable of growing two paddy crops. The father of the plaintiff was raising two crops in the said paddy field. Item No.1 of schedule property is situated towards north of Sy.No.117/4, wherein defendant No.1 temple is situated. The land in Sy.No.117/2A is higher in level by about 4- 5 feet from the land situated in Sy.No.117/4. There is a kattahuni in Sy.No.117/2A in its southern side and in Sy.No.117/2A. The width of the same is about 10-12 feet. Towards south of the said kattahuni, the land in Sy.No.117/4 is situated which is about 4-5 feet lower in level wherein defendant No.1 temple is situated. The said kattahuni which is situated in Sy.No.117/2A there are 5 yielding coconut trees, 2 coconut plants, one tamarind tree, one mango tree, one jack fruit tree and one teakwood tree which has been maintained and reared by his father till his death and after his death, the plaintiff was utilizing the usufructs of the said trees for himself. The said kattahuni which is situated in Sy.No.117/2A there are 5 yielding coconut trees, 2 coconut plants, one tamarind tree, one mango tree, one jack fruit tree and one teakwood tree which has been maintained and reared by his father till his death and after his death, the plaintiff was utilizing the usufructs of the said trees for himself. 4. It is also his case that he had converted the bailu field into a areca garden and at present there are yielding areca garden. Surrounding the said areca garden in the kattahuni in its north east and west, his father has planted coconut plants and now they are yielding. The father of the plaintiff died on 26/12/1982 leaving behind the plaintiff as one of the legal heirs. The plaintiff has also filed a suit on behalf of all the heirs of Shankaranaranappayya. After the death of the said Shankaranaranappayya, the mutation has been accepted in his name and RTC stands in his name. Even in the RTC, existence of areca trees and coconut trees and other fruit bearing trees are mentioned, which clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of those trees. Except the plaintiff, no one has got any right, title and interest in the said trees or in the said plaint schedule property. It is further stated that the plaint item No.2 of the schedule property consists of residential house and other improvements of the plaintiff which is situated towards western side of Sy.No.117/4. There is direct access from this survey number to Sy.No.117/2A. Sy.No. 117/2B was formerly in the possession of his father, which was formerly a tank. Later, at the request of the temple authority, i.e., defendant No.1, his father has given up his claim in respect of Sy.No.117/2 portion measuring 4 cents, which is now denoted as Sy.No.117/2B wherein now Pakashala is situated. Even in the kattahuni, the plaintiff has also planted coconut plants which are now aged about 6-7 years. Apart from it, there are yielding coconut trees of aged about more than 35-40 years. 5. Even in the kattahuni, the plaintiff has also planted coconut plants which are now aged about 6-7 years. Apart from it, there are yielding coconut trees of aged about more than 35-40 years. 5. It is contended that when the matter stood thus, defendant No.2 claiming to be a leader in the locality and claiming to be the well wisher of defendant No.1, in order to gain popularity in the locality, is making attempts to remove the coconut from the trees situated in the kattahuni which was the subject matter of the lease and in respect of which occupancy right has been conferred in favour of his father. It is the plaintiff who has been removing coconut from the trees situated in the kattahuni. The plaintiff on 2/4/1999, when he was removing coconut from the coconut trees situated in the southern kattahuni, defendant Nos.1 and 2 objected stating that the plaintiff shall not pluck coconut. The defendants have no manner of right and they have no right to object the plaintiff from plucking the coconut from the coconut trees situated in the southern kattahuni of Sy.No.117/2A. The defendant No.1 which is represented by Adalithedar is also supporting the illegal claim of defendant No.2 even though defendant No.1 has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. Defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have held out a threat that they will take forcible possession of the coconut trees and also remove the coconut from the coconut trees situated in the plaint 'A' schedule property and hence the suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction. 6. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement denying all the averments of the plaint. It was contended that the entries made in the RTCs produced by the plaintiff are not conclusive proof of alleged existence of trees and their possession by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of those trees. It is contended that defendant No.1 temple is situated in Sy.No.117/4 of Golthamajalu Village. In the outside of the temple in four sides, there are existence of foundation like structure which covers and protects the outer side "angana" of the temple. The said foundation is very old mud construction and higher in level than the level of the land on which the temple is situated. In the outside of the temple in four sides, there are existence of foundation like structure which covers and protects the outer side "angana" of the temple. The said foundation is very old mud construction and higher in level than the level of the land on which the temple is situated. In the southern side of the temple, the foundation like structure contains rows of coconut trees as similarly situated in disputed area. The plaintiff has made northern side foundation now the subject matter of the dispute. The situation of the disputed coconut trees are within the property of defendant No.1 temple. The plaintiff has resorted this false suit with an intention to grab the property of the temple. The alleged kattahuni is not situated within Sy.No.117/2B. The plaint sketch is not correct one and prepared by the plaintiff to suit his false claim. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 48. The defendant No.2 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got examined one of the trustee of defendant No.1 as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 9. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and considering the admission elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 and also considering Ex.P.48 and also the Commissioner report, decreed the suit and hence the appeal was filed before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2012. 7. The appellant in the appeal contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit. It is contended that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the facts of the case in a proper perspective and missed right point at issue and thereby arrived at wrong conclusion and relied on inadmissible and irrelevant evidence and circumstances. The Trial Court has failed to understand that the dispute lies in the alleged kattahuni and not in the survey number of the properties. The documentary evidence and report of the Commissioner reflects that the alleged kattahuni is not situated in the plaintiff's property. The Trial Court has failed to understand that the dispute lies in the alleged kattahuni and not in the survey number of the properties. The documentary evidence and report of the Commissioner reflects that the alleged kattahuni is not situated in the plaintiff's property. The lower Court ought to have come to the conclusion that the alleged kattahuni is not in the plaint schedule property and identification of the property made by the plaintiff is not correct. The Trial Court failed to understand both oral and documentary evidence available on record. Based on the grounds urged by the appellants, the Appellate Court also formulated the point whether the plaintiff has established his lawful possession over the schedule property and whether the plaintiff has established interference and whether disputed coconut trees fall within the properties of the plaintiff and the Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the finding given by the Trial Court requires interference and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established the lawful possession over the schedule properties and disputed coconut trees not comes within the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the present R.S.A. is filed before this Court by the plaintiffs/appellants. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in the second appeal is that the lower Appellate Court has erred in reversing the finding of fact rendered by the Trial Court based on the admission of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and drawn erroneous assumptions and committed an error. The lower Appellate Court has assumed that there is a serious dispute about the location of kattahuni and some of the coconut trees. The lower Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the plaint is silent about the existence of kattahuni in Sy.No.117/2A and when he claims his property within the boundary lines mentioned in the plaint and Ex.P.1, then he cannot claim right over the alleged revetment structure found immediately towards northern side of Sy.No.117/4, which belongs to the temple. The lower Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the plaint is silent about the existence of kattahuni in Sy.No.117/2A and when he claims his property within the boundary lines mentioned in the plaint and Ex.P.1, then he cannot claim right over the alleged revetment structure found immediately towards northern side of Sy.No.117/4, which belongs to the temple. The lower Appellate Court has erred in assuming that Ex.D.1 sketch is proved as the plaintiff in his evidence has admitted that the same was prepared prior to filing of the suit, but he has not applied for measurement, as such, in the absence of examining the author of Ex.D.1, the First Appellate Court ought not to have assumed that same is admitted in evidence and proved by the defendants. The lower Appellate Court has erred in holding that there cannot be kattahuni having 10-12 feet width ignoring the fact that there exists coconut trees and other trees and there is no bar in retaining the wide kattahuni to have free access, which is supported by Ex.P.48 being an undisputed document which was the basis for grant of occupancy right. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the First Appellate Court is not justified in reversing the decree of the Trial Court ignoring the admission of D.W.1 as to the possession of the plaintiff over plaint 'A' schedule property and when there is no dispute as to Ex.P.48, which establishes existence of kattahuni (bund), coconut and other trees which was the basis for confirmation of occupancy right in favour of the plaintiff's father. This Court taking note of the grounds urged in the appeal while admitting the second appeal, framed substantial question as follows: "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove his lawful possession suffers perversity?" 10. Inspite of service of notice against the respondents, they are unrepresented and hence this Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ex.P.48 in the grant certificate and occupancy rights has been conferred and the First Appellate Court failed to take note of the said document as well as coupled with Commission report. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ex.P.48 in the grant certificate and occupancy rights has been conferred and the First Appellate Court failed to take note of the said document as well as coupled with Commission report. The learned counsel would contend that the finding given by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.17 is not correct and proceeded in an erroneous approach. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court in paragraph No.18 made detailed discussion with regard to the pleadings as well as evidence on record and particularly admission given by D.W.1 and in paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the Trial Court taken note of Ex.C7 Commissioner report and the First Appellate Court relies upon Ex.D.1 which is not proved, but considered the same and ought not to have relied upon the document of Ex.D.1 and hence the learned counsel would contend that the material available on record is ignored by the First Appellate Court and proceeded in an erroneous approach. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the temple and also the Trial Court granted occupancy right in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The plaintiff also produced the plaint sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.1, copy of the order of the Land Tribunal, which is marked as Ex.P.2, copy of the sketch along with order which is marked as Ex.P.2(a) and also Ex.P.3 Form No.10 and produced the RTC in respect of Sy.Nos.117/2, 117/3, 117/4 and assessment receipt and copy of the complaint given in terms of Exs.P.17 and 18 and copy of the petition given to the Deputy Commissioner and photograph also produced. The notice issued by ADLR is also produced before the Court, statement of defendant No.1 before the ADLR is also produced as Ex.P.46 and certified copy of sketch as Ex.P47, Ex.P.48 vakkalu kararu and Commissioner report. The defendants have examined two witnesses and marked the document at Exs.D.1 to 9. The Commissioner has been examined and through Commissioner, the document Exs.C1 to 9 are marked including Commissioner report at Ex.C.7. 12. The defendants have examined two witnesses and marked the document at Exs.D.1 to 9. The Commissioner has been examined and through Commissioner, the document Exs.C1 to 9 are marked including Commissioner report at Ex.C.7. 12. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, the nature of the suit filed before the Trial Court is for the relief of permanent injunction. Having read the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses as well as the defendants' witnesses, it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property earlier belonged to the temple and occupancy right has been granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff examining himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint by filing an affidavit and also spoken with regard to the interference made by the defendants on 2/4/1999 and also spoken with regard to the giving of complaint. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that Sy.No.117/2 is located on the northern side of the temple and it was a wet land and existence of kattahuni and also admits that there were 31 coconut trees. His father had given application to Sy.No.117/2 and order was passed in favour of his father and he is having possession. While preparing Ex.P.48, he was not at the spot. The temple is facing towards east. He says that in respect of the disputed land and temple, there is no any demarcation. The document Ex.D.1 is also confronted and the same was prepared prior to the dispute. He has not given any application to survey the disputed land, but defendant No.3 has given the application. It is suggested that Ex.P.1 is not based on any document and the same is false document and the same was denied. 13. P.W.2 has spoken in terms of the evidence of P.W.1. In the cross-examination, he admits that the disputed survey number is not known to him and he admits that on the north of the temple, there are anganas and also admits that on the north of that angana, no wet land is situated. He denies the suggestion that on the north of the temple, no kattahuni, but he admits that on the surrounding of the temple on higher level there is a katte and the said katte belongs to the temple. The plaintiff is not having any right in respect of the same. He denies the suggestion that on the north of the temple, no kattahuni, but he admits that on the surrounding of the temple on higher level there is a katte and the said katte belongs to the temple. The plaintiff is not having any right in respect of the same. It is suggested that the plaintiff who is making dispute with regard to the coconut trees are in existence on the said katte and the same was denied. 14. On the other hand, the defendant who has been examined as D.W.1 filed an affidavit and in the cross- examination he admits that the occupancy right was granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff i.e., Sy.No.117/2A to the extent of 64 cents and his father was in cultivation of the said land and his father is no more. Thereafter, the property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he categorically admits that the suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff and at the time of dispute also as on the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff was in possession. He also admits that Ex.P.48 vakkalu kararu is a document of declaration in favour of the plaintiff. But he claims that while surveying the land in terms of Ex.D.2, notice was given and he does not know whether the notice was served to the plaintiff or not. D.W.1 further admits that while conducting the survey, mahazar was drawn and the statement of temple persons was recorded but he does not know with regard to the presence of the plaintiff at the time of the drawing of mahazar. Ex.D1 was prepared at the time of making the declaration and the original is with the temple. But he was not present at the time of declaration and he is not having personal information in respect of Ex.D1 and thereafter he has got the information and no one is alive who has got information in respect of Ex.D1. He cannot tell that who has produced Ex.D1 and he also cannot tell about Ex.D1. He also admits that Ex.P46 and P47 are prepared on 26/11/1999 by the surveyors and the same are the Statement and Sketch respectively and also they came to the spot and identified the border. 15. The other witness is DW2. He cannot tell that who has produced Ex.D1 and he also cannot tell about Ex.D1. He also admits that Ex.P46 and P47 are prepared on 26/11/1999 by the surveyors and the same are the Statement and Sketch respectively and also they came to the spot and identified the border. 15. The other witness is DW2. DW2 in his affidavit state that the plaintiff is claiming that the coconut trees belonged to him and in the cross-examination he admits that there are documents to show that he is the Administrative Trustee of the temple and also admits that the plaintiff's right was confirmed as occupancy right and their property is in their possession and also he knows what the plaintiff has claimed in the plaint. He also admits that he cannot tell who gave the application to survey the land and he is not aware of the information given to the plaintiff while preparing the document at Ex.D1. It is suggested that while preparing Ex.D1, no notice was given to the plaintiff and the said suggestion was denied. He claims that Ex.D1 was prepared when there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the temple but he cannot tell after how many days, Ex.D1 was prepared after the dispute. 16. Considered both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record in particular the evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2. In the cross-examination of PW1 with regard to the dispute between the parties in respect of coconut trees is concerned, nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW1 except that Sy.No.70/2 is situated on the southern side of the temple and the same is a wet land and having kattahuni and in the said kattahuni there are 31 coconut trees. He categorically admits that in respect of Sy.No.70/2, his father gave an application for declaration and the same is granted and he is having the possession of the same and also he admits that there are coconut trees in Sy.No.117/2 but he cannot tell at what extent the coconut trees are available. He categorically admits that there is no any demarcation between the plaintiff's property and the property of the temple. He categorically admits that there is no any demarcation between the plaintiff's property and the property of the temple. But in the cross-examination of DW1, it is very clear that the occupancy right was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father and he also admits that in Sy.No.117/2a, the extent of 64 cents are available and there was an order in favour of the plaintiff's father by the Land Tribunal and father of the plaintiff was in possession during his lifetime and after the death of the father, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and categorically admits that at the time of dispute also, the land is in possession of the plaintiff. This admission is very clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and earlier it was in the possession of his father during his lifetime and injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the finding of the Trial Court. 17. The Trial Court in its judgment, in paragraphs 17 to 23, discussed both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. In paragraph 14, discussed with regard to the oral evidence of the plaintiff and the documents produced by the plaintiff and taken note of the written statement in paragraph 15 and in paragraph 17, taken note of the admission given by DW1 and DW2. DW2 admits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the suit schedule property is situated lower level than the land of the temple. The Trial Court also taken note of the documents produced by the defendant particularly, the document of Ex.D1 and also taken note of the boundary mentioned in the same and extracted the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 in the cross-examination and in paragraph 18, taken note with regard to the possession. DW1 categorically admitted with regard to the document at Ex.P48 which the plaintiff is relied upon. DW1 categorically admitted with regard to the document at Ex.P48 which the plaintiff is relied upon. The Trial Court also taken note of the Commissioner's reported at Ex.P7 in paragraph 19 to prove the situation of kattahuni and stated that in the land bearing Sy.No.117/3 of the plaintiff, having house, cow shed, and Well and in Sy.No.117/2, areca nut plant, coconut trees and banana plants are also there and also in the sketch line 216 there are 144 links and 56 links and there is a fencing of Dasavala and there are 5 coconut trees on the northern side and they are aged about 40 to 50 years and the said fencing is in existence between the land of the plaintiff and the temple and the said fencing bifurcates the land of both the parties and there are 5 coconut trees on the southern side and approximate age of that trees is 40-50 years and 5 coconut trees towards northern side of the said fencing and also there is an areca garden. Hence taking into note of this report, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that northern side of the said fencing belonged to the plaintiff and trees situated in the southern side of the fencing belongs to the temple and the plaintiff is enjoying the trees which were planted towards northern side of the temple and also taken note of the evidence of PW1 in paragraph 20 regarding marking of document at Ex.D1 and author of the document at Ex.D1 has not been examined. The Trial Court taking note of Ex.P46 and P47 dtd. 26/11/1999 which are prepared at the spot by the surveyor and mahazar was drawn and the same is admitted by the witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court i.e., DW1 and DW2. When such being the case, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that Ex.P46 and P47 are not disputed and there is a presumptive value in respect of Ex.P46 and P47 and considering the material available on record particularly the documents at Ex.P46 to P48 and also taken note of the evidence of CW1 who has admitted in the cross- examination that there is no basis to show that Panchanga is situated in survey line 216 and taking into note of the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the case. 18. 18. The First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court considered the grounds urged in the appeal and discussed in detail regarding suit schedule property consists of two items of property i.e., Sy.No.117/2a to the extent of 64 cents and also taken note of dispute lies in between southern boundary of item No.1 of schedule and northern boundary of Sy.No.117/4 but comes to the conclusion that there is no mention about situation of coconut trees in Ex.P46 and P47 but observed that the plaintiff cannot claim right over the alleged revetment structure found immediate towards northern side of Sy.No.117/4 is that of belongs to the plaintiff and RTC pertaining to schedule property at Ex.P5 for the year 1998-99, Ex.P6 up to Ex.P9, wherein it is mentioned about existence of coconut trees, areca trees and other fruit trees along with one building and RTCs also disclose the situation of the temple, house of the plaintiff, situation of pakashale, etc. Ex.P12 also discloses the coconut trees and other trees but the same has not been considered by the First Appellate Court but comes to the conclusion that those entries will not help the plaintiff to lay claim over the existence of the same over the kattahuni. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and failed to take note of the admission given by DW1 and DW2 and erroneously comes to the conclusion that when the Commissioner's report is against him, no importance can be attached to cross-examination of Commissioner by defendant for the reason that when the plaintiff cross-examined the Commissioner, he has put the suggestion to him stating that his earlier report and sketch prepared is correct. It is observed that if both the sketch and report are read along with Ex.D1 sketch, schedule and boundaries given therein, then, claim of the plaintiff over the coconut trees situated on southern side of survey line 216 is highly improper and therefore, the plaintiff is guilty of suppression and the very observation of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and the same is against the Commissioner's report as well as the admission given by DW1 and DW2. 19. 19. The First Appellate Court though referred the admission given by DW1 in the cross-examination in page No.28 of its order but observed that DW1 admitted that at the time of preparing of Ex.D2, notice was given to him on 19/4/1999 and original sketch is with the temple and Ex.D1 sketch is prepared at the time of grant of the land. Hence, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that when the document at Ex.D1 was confronted to the plaintiff, same can be relied upon and mere confronting and admitting the document cannot be a ground to accept the document at Ex.D1 and erroneously comes to the conclusion that coconut trees are situated in disputed area and dispute is only with regard to the possession of those trees by the plaintiff and the defendant. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction is not in dispute and injunction is also sought for in respect of suit schedule property. The suit is for the relief of permanent injunction is not in dispute and injunction is also sought for in respect of suit schedule property. DW1 and DW2 have categorically admitted that the plaintiff's father was in possession of the suit schedule property during his lifetime and thereafter, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the documents at Ex.P46 and P47 are not disputed and the same is also admitted by DW1 but only conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court that Ex.P48 is silent regarding where exactly the coconut trees are situated and given more importance to the evidence of PW1 that he was not present at the time of preparing Ex.P48 and taken note of the admission given by PW1 that Ex.D1 was prepared prior to filing of the suit after the measurement and said document came to be marked as Ex.D1 and he had not applied for measurement of properties and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the disputed kattahuni comes beyond the property of the plaintiff towards southern side and when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and relief is sought for to restrain the defendant from entering and interfering with the property of the plaintiff and Court ought to have taken note of the admission given by DW1 as well as DW2 instead of that proceeded to comes to a other conclusion that the coconut trees are not situated within the suit schedule property and there is no any authenticated document before the Court with regard to the location of the coconut trees and injunction is also granted in respect of the suit schedule property and DW1 and DW2 have categorically admitted that earlier property belongs to the temple and thereafter occupancy right was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father and after the death of the father, the plaintiff is in possession of the same and the First Appellate Court has given more importance to the document at Ex.D1 and approach of the First Appellate Court is against the admissions elicited from the mouth of DW1 and DW2. The finding given by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 17 is against the admissions available on record and also the documentary evidence available on record particularly Ex.P46 to P48. The finding given by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 17 is against the admissions available on record and also the documentary evidence available on record particularly Ex.P46 to P48. The document at Ex.D1 has not been proved and the Trial Court in detail discussed both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and Ex.D1 is only the certified copy of the sketch and the author of the said document also has not been examined and there is a reference in the document at Ex.P48, the existence of coconut trees and no contra evidence against the document at Ex.P48. But the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no reference in the document at Ex.P48 regarding existence of coconut trees and the same is contrary to the mentioning of coconut trees in document at Ex.P48. 20. On perusal of document at Ex.D1, no doubt, coconut trees are mentioned in Sy.No.117/4 and in order to prove that document, the author of the said document has not been examined. DW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that no notice was given to the plaintiff while preparing the document at Ex.D1 and he has not sure about giving of notice to the plaintiff but claims that notice was given at the instance of temple and he cannot tell whether the said notice was served on the plaintiff or not and this admission is found in paragraph 8 of the cross-examination of DW1 and also he categorically admits that he cannot tell whether the plaintiff was present or not and no document to show that the notice was served on the plaintiff but categorically admitted that Ex.D1 was prepared at the time of declaration but DW1 categorically says that he was not present at the time of preparing the document at Ex.D1 and he is not having any personal information in respect of Ex.D1. When these are the answers elicited from the mouth of DW1, the First Appellate Court ought not to have accepted the document of Ex.D1 when DW1 admits that he cannot tell that who had produced Ex.D1 and hence, he cannot tell anything about Ex.D1. 21. When these are the answers elicited from the mouth of DW1, the First Appellate Court ought not to have accepted the document of Ex.D1 when DW1 admits that he cannot tell that who had produced Ex.D1 and hence, he cannot tell anything about Ex.D1. 21. The other witness DW2 also in the cross-examination in respect of Ex.D1 is concerned, says that he is not having any knowledge about the service of notice at Ex.D2 by the temple, but he is the Administrative Trustee of the temple and he did not made any attempt to know that whether Ex.D2 notice was served on the plaintiff or not and also he cannot tell who gave an application to measure the property in respect of Ex.D2 and he is also not having any knowledge about giving of any application to survey the property and further he admits that he cannot tell at whose instance the said document was prepared and also he cannot tell that whether the information was given to the plaintiff while preparing the document at Ex.D1 and when these answers are elicited from the mouth of DW1 and DW2, the First Appellate Court ought not to have relied upon the document of Ex.D1 and hence, the First Appellate Court committed an error in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court and the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court are contrary to the material available on record and hence, taking into note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, I have answered the substantial question of law as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court has committed an error that the plaintiff has not proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and hence, the same amounts to perversity and ignored both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the answer elicited from the mouth of DW1 and DW2 with regard to the possession as well as the document at Ex.D1 which has been relied upon by the First Appellate Court hence, the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant a deserves to be allowed by answering substantive question of law as affirmative. 22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. 22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court passed in R.A.No.15/2012 is set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.65/1999 is restored and confirmed.