JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.66 of 2008 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.43/3 (46/P3) measuring 04 acres was granted in favour of one Dasappa son of Karishetty. Dasappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The suit schedule property was granted on 11.01.1963. Dasappa died on 22.06.1997 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. 6. After his demise, the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they are paying the land revenue of the suit schedule property. During the lifetime of Dasappa, he had executed a Mortgage deed dated 22.05.1992 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of one Madegowda son of Sannegowda. On 31.03.1998, said Mortgage deed was discharged. The defendant is an attesting witness to the said mortgage deed. There was a mistake in the description of Block number in respect of the suit schedule property viz., Survey No.43/12, which was rectified by the revenue authorities. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is averred that the defendant, who is the land-holder of the eastern side of the suit property, is trying to force the plaintiffs to sell the suit schedule property. After their refusal, the defendant started causing interference with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 7. Plaintiff No.3 lodged a complaint against the defendant. The police issued an endorsement stating that the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant is civil in nature and instructed them to approach the Civil Court. After their refusal, the defendant started causing interference with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 7. Plaintiff No.3 lodged a complaint against the defendant. The police issued an endorsement stating that the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant is civil in nature and instructed them to approach the Civil Court. As such, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction.Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 8. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is denied that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Dasappa through a Saguvali Chit dated 11.01.1963 and denied that Dasappa was cultivating the suit schedule property during his lifetime and after his death, the plaintiffs were cultivating the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also denied the description of the suit schedule property shown in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiffs are claiming the land of the defendant by showing the boundaries of the defendant's land. It is contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 9. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property as the same was granted in favour of Dasappa who is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove an alleged interference by the defendant as the defendant is the eastern boundary holder of the schedule property? 3. Whether this Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have furnished wrong boundaries to the schedule property ? 5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for? 7. What Order or Decree? 10. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. 11. 5. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for? 7. What Order or Decree? 10. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. 11. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1, examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and marked 12 documents as Exhibits D1 to D12. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 in the negative; issue Nos.3 and 4 in the affirmative; issue No.7-as per the final order; the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.04.2008. 13. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit in O.S. No.58 of 2003, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.66 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna. 14. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession of the schedule property which was a grant to Dasappa, S/o Karishetty and the same is with definite boundaries? 2. Whether the respondent/defendant proves that Sy. No.43/3P3 measuring to an extent of 4 acres is still not identified? 3. Whether the interference in the impugned judgment is called for? 4. What order? 15. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative; point No.2 in the negative; and point No.4 - as per the final order. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.58 of 2003 was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed, declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, vide judgment dated 06.04.2013. 16. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.66 of 2008, preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 18. 16. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.66 of 2008, preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 18. Learned counsel for the defendant admitted that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The defendant has denied the description of the suit schedule property. The burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the description of the suit schedule property. He has admitted that the plaintiffs have not produced any public documents to establish the description of the suit schedule property. He also submitted that the plaintiffs have produced Exhibit P6, which is a mutation extract. He submitted that on the basis of the application made by the plaintiffs, the revenue authorities have passed an order as per Exhibit P6. The Order passed by the Revenue Authorities is not supported by any evidence regarding Survey No.43/12 as Survey No.43/3. 19. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram and others vs. Dawalath shah and others reported in AIR 1971 SC 681 20. Further, he also submitted that the First Appellate Court has not re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court only on the weakness of the defendant. Further, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of P.Govindaswami vs P.Devra reported in ILR 1997 KAR 1486 . He submitted that the Court is not required to mechanically accept whatever the revenue authorities have put down there, particularly having regard to the manner in which the entries are made and the manner in which they are changed. 21. There is a discrepancy in the boundary shown in the plaint schedule and the boundary shown in Exhibit P- 14 i.e., Mortgage Deed. He also submitted that the defendant has denied his signature on Exhibit P14. He submitted that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to refer Exhibit P14 to the handwriting expert for comparison of signature on Exhibit P14 with the admitted signature of defendant. 22. He also submitted that the defendant has denied his signature on Exhibit P14. He submitted that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to refer Exhibit P14 to the handwriting expert for comparison of signature on Exhibit P14 with the admitted signature of defendant. 22. He also submitted that the First Appellate Court without re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, went on discussing the evidence lead by the defendant and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 23. He submitted that there is a serious dispute regarding the identity of the property. The said aspect was not considered by the First Appellate Court and had committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 24. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there is no dispute that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Dasappa and he died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. He submitted that after the demise of Dasappa, the plaintiffs came in possession of the suit schedule property. He submitted that during the lifetime of Dasappa, he mortgaged the suit schedule property and after his demise, the plaintiffs sought to redeem the mortgage through Exhibit P14. He also submitted that the First Appellate Court has re- appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly held that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the same was granted in favour of Dasappa, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and held that the defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and he also submitted that there is no dispute regarding the boundaries. 25. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Muniyamma vs. A.K.Chinnappa reported in 2024 (3) AKR 523 and he has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chandrabhan (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Saraswati and others reported in AIR 2022 SC 4601 . Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 26. This Court, vide order dated 18.05.2018, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 26. This Court, vide order dated 18.05.2018, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence lead before the trial Court in its proper perspective, which has lead it to come to a different finding from the trial Court? 2. Whether there is improper appreciation of documentary evidence at Exs.P8 and P14? Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and 2 27. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked and hence, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 28. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Dasappa was cultivating the suit schedule property and the Government granted the suit schedule property in favour of Dasappa. 29. During his lifetime, he mortgaged the suit schedule property. He died without redeeming the mortgage. After the death of Dasappa, the plaintiffs continued in possession of the suit schedule property and got redeemed the mortgage. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the defendant is the attesting witness to the mortgage agreement. 30. To prove the description of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have produced the document Exhibit P14/mortgage agreement, which discloses the boundaries of the property mortgaged under Exhibit P14. To prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have produced: Exhibit P1 is the Grant Certificate, which discloses that Dasappa was allotted the land to the extent of 4 acres in survey No.43/3; Exhibit P2 is the sketch, which discloses the location of the suit schedule property; Exhibit P3 is the records of rights; Exhibit P4 is the Index of Lands; Exhibit P5 is the Mutation Extract, which discloses that based on Saguvali Chit, the name of Dasappa, was mutated in respect of the land in survey No.43/3 to the extent of 4 acres; Exhibit P6 is the Mutation Extract, which discloses that the application filed for rectification of the survey number in the RTC to the effect that 43/12, instead of 43/3. From the perusal of Exhibit P6, the Revenue Authority has passed an order on the basis of an application submitted by the plaintiffs. From the perusal of Exhibit P6, the Revenue Authority has passed an order on the basis of an application submitted by the plaintiffs. The said order is not supported by any documents; Exhibit P7 is the certified copy of the RTC extract, which discloses that the revenue authority has rectified the mistake regarding Survey No.43/3; Exhibit P8 discloses the Boundaries Certificate for Sy.No.43/3; Exhibit P9 is the tax paid receipt; Exhibit P10 is the Patta book; Exhibits P11 and 12 are RTCs; Exhibit P13 is the NCR; Exhibit P14 is the Mortgage Agreement deed dated22.05.1992, which discloses that Dassappa mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of mortgagee, wherein the property number is shown as Survey No.46/3 and not as Survey No.43; Though the defendant has signed as a consenting witness to Exhibit P14, the defendant has denied the signature on Exhibit P14; The signature of the defendant is marked as Ex.P14(a). Exhibit P15 is the written statement filed by defendant; Exhibit P16 is the Vakalatnama; 31. During the cross-examination of PW1, he has denied the ownership of the defendant, and discrepancy in the description of the suit schedule property and the execution of the mortgage agreement was admitted. 32. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, examined one more witness as PW2, who has deposed that the suit schedule property measuring 04 acres is bounded on east by the land of Rajegowda, the defendant; west by the land of Veerabhadra; north by Malemani Farm; and south by the land of Lakkaiah and others of Sabbanahalli village belonged to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property and it belonged to Dasappa. That the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suitable property. On 22.05.1992, Dasappa and D.Kumar/plaintiff No.3 executed an Agreement of Mortgage/Exhibit P14 in favour of Madegowda for Rs.3,000/- and the defendant has affixed his signature on Exhibit P14. 33. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and he deposed that the Government has not granted any land in favour of Dasappa to the extent of 04 acres, as contended by the plaintiffs. He has deposed that the plaintiffs are claiming the property of the defendant by showing the boundaries of the land of the defendant. He also deposed that the defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He has deposed that the plaintiffs are claiming the property of the defendant by showing the boundaries of the land of the defendant. He also deposed that the defendant is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He also deposed that the plaintiffs have got created the documents and got filed the suit. He also submitted that the suit records clearly disclose that the plaintiffs are the owners of Survey No.43/12 and not Survey No.43/3. 34. When Exhibit P14 was confronted to DW1, DW1 has denied his signature on Exhibit P14. Thus, the defendant, to prove his defence, produced a documents: Exhibits D1 and D2 are the pahanis for Survey Nos.43/P13 and 43/12 respectively, which disclose the name of one Papegowda; Exhibit D3 is the mutation extract; Exhibit D4 is the tax paid receipt; Exhibit D5 is the sketch which discloses that the land of the defendant; Exhibit D6 is the index of lands; Exhibit D7 is the record of rights; Exhibit D8 is the index of lands; Exhibit D9 is the record of rights; Exhibit D10 is the registered sale deed dated29.08.2005; Exhibit D11 is the mutation extract; Exhibit D12 is the record of rights. 35. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, the plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners of the land bearing Survey No.43/3, now re-numbered as Survey No.43/P3. 36. The plaintiffs have produced Grant Certificate marked as Exhibit P1. From the perusal of Exhibit P1, it discloses the survey number as “Block 3 in Sy.No.43”, but does not disclose the boundaries. Admittedly, Survey No.43 measures more than 100 acres. The plaintiffs and the defendant have seriously disputed regarding the boundaries of the suit schedule property. 37. Further, the plaintiffs have produced Exhibit P6 i.e., Mutation Extract, which discloses that earlier, the property owned and possessed by Dasappa was shown as Survey No.43/12. During the lifetime of Dasappa, he has not submitted any application for rectification of the survey number. After the demise of Dasappa, the plaintiffs have submitted an application to the Revenue Authorities for rectification of Survey No.43/12. The Revenue Authorities, based on the application submitted by the plaintiffs, have passed an order rectifying Survey No.43/12 as Survey No.43/3. Exhibit P6 also discloses that the said order was passed on the application submitted by the plaintiffs. After the demise of Dasappa, the plaintiffs have submitted an application to the Revenue Authorities for rectification of Survey No.43/12. The Revenue Authorities, based on the application submitted by the plaintiffs, have passed an order rectifying Survey No.43/12 as Survey No.43/3. Exhibit P6 also discloses that the said order was passed on the application submitted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that Survey No.43/12 was re-numbered as Survey No.43/3. 38. Thus, it is clear that the said order is passed on an untrue piece of evidence which has no evidentiary value in civil cases, in view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram and others vs. Dawalath shah and others reported in AIR 1971 SC 681 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order of a Revenue Authority in the mutation proceedings based on an untrue piece of evidence has no evidentiary value in a civil suit. 39. In the instant case, the mutation order was passed on an untrue piece of evidence and thus, has no evidentiary value. Further, this Court is not required to mechanically accept whatever the Revenue Authorities have put down there, particularly having regard to the manner in which these entries are made and the manner in which they are changed. 40. In this background, one needs to take a serious note of the fact that the entries in the case happen to be in the name of the plaintiffs i.e., in 2001. The grant was made during 1963-64. Further, though the plaintiffs have contended that the defendant is the signatory to Exhibit P14, the defendant has denied his signature on Exhibit P14. 41. Further, if the boundaries shown in the schedule of the plaint are compared with the boundaries shown in Mortgage deed dated 22.05.1992 vide Exhibit P14, it is clear that the properties are totally different. In Exhibit P14, the survey number is shown as 43, whereas in the plaint schedule, it is shown as Survey No.43/P3. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. 42. The First Appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment only on the ground that the defendant has not produced any records to establish regarding the non-existence of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to establish that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. 42. The First Appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment only on the ground that the defendant has not produced any records to establish regarding the non-existence of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has failed to consider the well-established principle of law that the party who approaches the Court must prove his case independently and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant. 43. From the perusal of the entire impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has recorded its findings in Paragraph 21, which reads as follows: “Now even when the attempt on the part of the defendant to prove that there does not exist a schedule property or that towards the east of the suit schedule property of the defendant is not in existence. Even this effort has not been undertaken by the defendant. For a moment, when we look into the very defence setup by the defendant, I should say it is with many inconsistencies. Especially, it is the say of this DW-1 (the defendant) that so far as Survey No.43/13 is concerned, the plaintiff has given the boundaries of the suit schedule property which is the survey number property and belonged to the defendant’s brother by name Appugowda son of Papegowda” and in the same paragraph, it is also recorded that “In fact, it is the argument of the defendants' counsel that there is no document to substantiate that the boundaries of the plaintiffs furnished to his suit schedule shall be properly established. The same yardstick applies to this defendant also. It is because Exhibit D1 is the RTC in respect of Survey No.43/P13, we come across the name of Papegowda.” 44. Further, it has also recorded a finding that “So far as other documents are concerned, it is in respect of land which is claimed by DW1 that belonged to their father in Survey No. 43/12 and 43/13. Another important aspect which this court has noticed is that even when this defendant has also not placed those documents to show that when did the Hissa proceedings are Durast took place and why there was a change of survey number. Another important aspect which this court has noticed is that even when this defendant has also not placed those documents to show that when did the Hissa proceedings are Durast took place and why there was a change of survey number. In fact, it is one of the circumstances which made the trial Court to doubt all the revenue records of the appellants. Under such circumstances, I am drawing this inference only to come to the conclusion that when the plaintiffs had come to the court with a definite case that there exists a suit schedule property and it was substantiated by separate independent transactions which took place at Exhibit P14.” and further observed in paragraph 22, “In this regard, I should say foul play and double standard adopted by the defendant was very much seen when we take into oral testimony of DW3.” 45. Thus, the entire judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is placing reliance on the weakness of the defendant. The First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record to establish that there is a serious dispute regarding the identity of the property and without considering the said aspect, it has passed the impugned judgment. 46. Further, Exhibit P8 is the Boundary Certificate which discloses the boundaries of Survey No.43/3. There is an alteration in Exhibit P8. Earlier, it was mentioned as Survey No.43/12 and subsequently, there is an alteration in Survey No.43/3. Further, the said documents came into existence in 2001-02. As per Exhibit P1, land was granted in favour of Dasappa in 1963-64. From 1963-64 till 2000, neither Dasappa nor the plaintiffs have taken any steps for rectification of the alleged wrong survey number. It was only in 2001-02, the plaintiffs have taken a step for rectification of survey number as 43/3. 47. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit schedule property and are in possession of the suit schedule property. 48. The defendant has denied the existence of the suit schedule property and as such, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the existence of the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the defendant has failed to prove the non-existence of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has placed a burden on the defendant to prove the case. On the contrary, the First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the defendant has failed to prove the non-existence of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has placed a burden on the defendant to prove the case. The First Appellate Court has committed an error in placing the said burden on the defendant. 49. The impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court is, therefore, arbitrary and erroneous, and it has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a different conclusion from the Trial Court. 50. In view of the above discussion, I answer question Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 51. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed (II) The judgment and decree dated06.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.66 of 2008 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur sitting at Periyapatna, is hereby set aside. (III) The judgment and decree dated 04.04.2008 passed in O.S. No.58 of 2003 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Periyapatna is restored (IV) No order as to the costs. (V) In view of the disposal of the appeal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would not press I.A. Nos.1 of 2025 and 2 of 2020. Submission is placed on record. Accordingly, the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.