JUDGMENT : This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2018 passed in R.A.No.75/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The suit schedule property is a garden land measuring 18 guntas in which the coconut trees are grown. The defendants though having no any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, they are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that earlier, the defendants have preferred the writ petition against the order dated 11.06.2022 passed by the Land Tribunal before the High Court of Karnataka and the said writ petition was dismissed and inspite of dismissal of the writ petition, the defendants are continuing to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended in the written statement that they have filed an appeal against the order of the writ petition and the same is pending for consideration. 4. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P15. On the other hand, the defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D16. The Trial Court after considering both the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed and the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 5. The counsel for the appellant vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff hence, this Court has to frame the substantial question of law that the Trial Court is not justified in decreeing the suit and the First Appellate Court is not justified in confirming the same. Hence, it requires interference. 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the plaintiff in order to prove his case, relied upon the documents at Ex.P1 to P15 and the defendants have also to prove their case relied upon the documents at Ex.D1 to D16 and the Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the documents produced by the plaintiff clearly discloses that his name was entered in the mutation register as per the order of the Land Tribunal and therefore, RTCs are also standing in his name. If the defendants are aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal, they may challenge the same before the proper forum and it is needless to say that as per Ex.P15, the writ petition filed by the original defendant challenging the order of the Land Tribunal is rejected and therefore, without production of any appeal or SLP filed, the mere contention of the defendants about challenging the said order cannot be accepted and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also on reappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in paragraph 16 held that the documents placed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court are clearly establishes his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and it is also held that column No.9 and 12(2) standing in the name of the plaintiff and Ex.P13 – letter of Tahsildar and Ex.P15, the order of High Court of Karnataka passed in W.P.N.32094/2002 clearly and categorically support the case of the plaintiff and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and formed an opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The reasoning given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is based on the documentary evidence placed before them hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out the case and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly considering the documents at Ex.P1 t P10 as well as the order of this Court in dismissing the writ petition wherein the order of Land Tribunal was questioned, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in decreeing the suit and in confirming the judgment of the Trial Court hence, the very contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the orders of both the Courts are perverse cannot be accepted. Thus, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER : The appeal is dismissed.