JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC by the plaintiffs in OS.No.149/1998 challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA No.4/2004 dated 01.09.2007 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), T.Narasipura. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the property bearing Survey No.116 of Athahalli Village; their father purchased the said property measuring approximately 4 guntas i.e., 69 feet east to west and 60 feet north to south from its previous vendor, Mr. Rangegowda, S/o Karigowdana Rangegowda, under a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1957. The plaintiffs' father constructed a house in the portion of the said property measuring 21 feet east to west and 40 feet north to south. The plaintiffs kept open the remaining portion of the land and they also formed a road towards the eastern side as well as northern side of their house. They kept a vacant site measuring 50 feet north to south and 30 feet east to west. Out of the said open site, the defendant is trying to interfere and construct a building in the area shown by letters-A.B.C.D in the hand sketch measuring 18 feet east to west and 45 feet north to south. The defendant has no right or title over the said property. With these reasons, the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. 4. The defendant denied the plaint averments and denied identity of the property. According to the contention of defendant, the panchayath formed layout in Survey No.116/1 during the year 1948 after acquisition of the said land. Thereafter, it was divided/phoded as Survey Nos.116/A, 116/B and 116/C. Therefore, as on the year 1957, there was no existence of land in Survey No.116/1. It is further contended that the father of the defendant was granted a site to an extent of 18 feet X 44 feet by the panchayath and its Khata number was given as Khata No.655. Thereafter, the defendant's father, defendant and his brothers have been paying taxes to the said property. In the year 1993, the defendant after obtaining the licence from the Panchayath, started to put a foundation. Thereafter, the defendant's father, defendant and his brothers have been paying taxes to the said property. In the year 1993, the defendant after obtaining the licence from the Panchayath, started to put a foundation. Due to some difficulties, he could not complete the construction. Therefore, during the year 1998, once again he applied for the license. At that time, the plaintiffs began obstructing to grant the license. However, when the license was issued in 1993, the Panchayat conducted a mahazar, during which the plaintiffs raised no objection and even signed as witnesses. Therefore, during the year 1998, they can not object for the same. The plaintiffs have no right over the said property bearing Khata No.655. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial court framed following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant has collected materials to put up construction encroaching upon the western side of the suit schedule property in the area "ABCD" as shown in the plaint? 3. Whether the defendant proves that this suit is not maintainable for want of relief of declaration? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for? 5. What order and decree?" 6. The plaintiffs to prove their case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 9 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-9. The defendant examined four witnesses as DW-1 to DW-4 and marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-29. 7. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative and decreed the suit as prayed. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 13.04.2004, the defendant preferred RA No.4/2004 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div) at T. Narasipura. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, formed the following points for its determination: "1. Whether respondents-plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule property and defendant is interfering in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the appellant/defendant proves that the Judgment and decree of the trial court is perverse and unsustainable and interference of this court is required? 3. What Order or decree?" 9. Whether respondents-plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule property and defendant is interfering in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the appellant/defendant proves that the Judgment and decree of the trial court is perverse and unsustainable and interference of this court is required? 3. What Order or decree?" 9. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the positive and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS No.149/1998 dated 13.04.2004 and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the divergent finding of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 10. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in the absence of any document to show that the government had acquired the land in Survey No.116/1 and the site was allotted to the defendant?" 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the plaintiffs are claiming possession on the basis of sale deed executed by its previous owner in favour of their father. The original sale deed was placed on record. There is a slight change in the boundary mentioned in Ex.P.1 compared to the plaint schedule. However, the western boundary remains the same and is not disputed by the defendant. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested that western boundary of the suit property is "the house of Kempaiah @ Puttaraju S/o Sidda". Based on the sale deed, the panchayath records were mutated in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have constructed a house in the part of the said property and they have been in possession of the same. The remaining portion of the property is an open site and part of the said property is a subject matter of the suit. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, the plaintiffs were able to prove their title and possession over the property. 13. The remaining portion of the property is an open site and part of the said property is a subject matter of the suit. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, the plaintiffs were able to prove their title and possession over the property. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the main contention urged by the defendant was that the panchayat acquired land in Survey No.116/1 and formed a layout for allotment of the sites to certain class of people. One of the said sites was allotted to the father of the defendant. On that basis, the panchayath entered the name of the defendant in Khata No.655. But the defendant has not placed any scrap of paper in respect of acquisition of the property in Survey No.116/1 by the government for forming of the layout and allotment of hakkupatra in the name of father of the defendant. In the absence of the said records, the contention of the defendant is not tenable. 14. The defendant was a government servant and by influencing the panchayat officials, he has created the panchayat records. The records produced by the defendant are not in accordance with law and on the basis of such records, a registered document executed in the name of father of the plaintiffs cannot be set aside or ignored. The Trial Court has considered this fact in detail and rightly decreed the suit. 15. He further contends that the First Appellate Court, without any materials on record, held that the defendant is in possession of the disputed area, only on the basis of the panchayat records. He further contends that the panchayat records do not confer any title or possession over the property; it only shows that the person whose name was entered in the panchayat records was liable to pay tax. Therefore, the First Appellate Court erroneously reversed the judgment. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said findings of the First Appellate Court. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the boundary mentioned in the sale deed/Ex.P.1 and boundary mentioned in the plaint sketch map marked at Ex.P.7 are not consistent. The defendant has produced a title deed of vendor of the plaintiffs. Therefore, prayed to set aside the said findings of the First Appellate Court. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that the boundary mentioned in the sale deed/Ex.P.1 and boundary mentioned in the plaint sketch map marked at Ex.P.7 are not consistent. The defendant has produced a title deed of vendor of the plaintiffs. According to the said title deed, vendor of the plaintiffs by name Rangegowda, S/o Karigowdana Rangegowda had only an extent of 3 1/2 guntas of land in Survey No.116/1 and he was not at all owner of the 4 guntas of land. Therefore, he could not have transferred excess land in favour of the father of the plaintiffs'. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim title on the basis of Ex.P.1. 17. He further repeatedly contended that heavy burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove their case and they cannot stand on the weakness of the defendant. The plaintiffs were unable to prove their possession of the property and also failed to establish that their property was situated within the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P1. The plaintiff No.1 was a party in a document executed by the panchayat i.e., mahazar, wherein he accepted the case of the defendant and also stated that he has no objection for giving the license to construct the building. On the basis of the said license, during the year 1993, permission was granted to defendant. The said findings were not set aside by any competent authority and therefore, it is binding on his rights. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that name of the father of the defendant was entered in the panchayat record in respect of Khata No.655 and he has been paying the tax to the said open site. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted the situation of the property as stated in Ex.D.29. These records were sufficient to show that the said site wherein the defendant intended to construct a building was belonging to the defendant and the plaintiffs have no right over the said property. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.4/2004. 19. Most of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents are on the merits of the case. It is a Regular Second Appeal and only substantial question of law would be considered in the present appeal. 20. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.4/2004. 19. Most of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents are on the merits of the case. It is a Regular Second Appeal and only substantial question of law would be considered in the present appeal. 20. The point for consideration raised by this Court is in respect of rejection of the relief in favour of the plaintiffs, without there being any document to show that government has acquired Survey No.116/1 and allotted the site to the defendant. Undisputedly, there is no scrap of paper produced by the defendant to show that Survey No.116/1 was acquired by the government for formation of the layout or such site was allotted to the beneficiary residing there. 21. Most of the records produced by the defendant are Panchayat records, and there is nothing on record to show as how they were originated. The Secretary of the Panchayat or any other office bearer does not have any authority to prepare a mahazar for the purpose of determining the civil rights of the parties. Even if we consider that such a record was signed by the plaintiff, the same would not take away the right over the immovable property of a party to the suit, acquired under a registered document. The learned counsel for the respondents has not shown any provision of law which authorise panchayat officials to cancel the title of purchaser of land by drawing a mahazar. 22. There is a difference in the extent of land said to be held by Rangegowda as mentioned in Ex.D.1 and Ex.P.1. However, such variation does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs, as in both documents the measurement is stated only "approximately". In Ex.P.1, it is mentioned as east-west 16 yards and north-south 20 yards, approximately 4 guntas. Even if it is considered 3 1/2 guntas, the plaintiffs are not claiming possession in respect of 1/2 Guntas. Though the defendant, in the written statement, has disputed the plaintiffs’ rights over the property but it is not denied that they are part of Survey No.116/1, which is noted in the written statement. According to defendant, in the year 1948 itself, they were bifurcated and Survey Nos.116/A, 116/B and 116/C were formed. All these contentions were without any substance. 23. According to defendant, in the year 1948 itself, they were bifurcated and Survey Nos.116/A, 116/B and 116/C were formed. All these contentions were without any substance. 23. The First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment, should have observed regarding the error committed by the Trial Court. Merely because two views are possible, it does not mean that the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, the observations made by the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.17, 18, 20 and 21 are not tenable. 24. The plaintiffs have been claiming the right over the property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in the year 1957, which remains undisputed. The defendant claims his right over the same property on the basis of alleged acquisition, formation of sites and subsequent grant in favour of his father. However, as already stated above, no records are produced in this respect. Even while making the khata, there is no reference regarding acquisition of the land, formation of the sites and allotment through the beneficiaries in the panchayat records. If such records were available, why did the Panchayat not mention them in the mahazar. These particulars clearly indicate that without any right the defendant is interfering in the plaintiffs property. 25. The Trial Court appreciating the materials available on record, has rightly held that the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the property and the defendant was interfering in the said possession without any right. The First Appellate Court erred in reversing the said finding without proper reasons. Therefore, the said finding needs to be set aside. 26. For the aforesaid discussions, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in favour of the appellants. 27. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in RA No.4/2004 dated 01.09.2007 is set aside. iii. The findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.149/1998 dated 13.04.2004 is confirmed. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment.