JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.302/2007 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri and the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.89/2002 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Madhugiri. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The land bearing Sy.No.6 of Kurihalli village totally measuring 17 acres originally belongs to the Government. The plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation and cultivation and in enjoyment of the suit schedule property for the past 25 years to an extent of 3 acres out of 17 acres. The Tahsildar has granted 3 acres of land vide order dated 19.02.1994 and the saguvali chit was issued to the plaintiff. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the defendant managed to get the name entered in the revenue records by colluding with the Revenue Officials to regularise the land that was granted to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff and another grantee, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 15.03.1999 and the Deputy Commissioner's order was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in an appeal, wherein the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. It is observed that the land was not granted to the defendant. Hence, the question of challenging the grant order would not arise. Therefore, the appeal was allowed. Once again the defendant has filed the petition before the Assistant Commissioner, where the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant of the plaintiff. It is contented that the defendant taking advantage of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. 3.1. It is contented that the defendant taking advantage of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the description of the suit schedule property and contended that the suit property was granted in favour of the defendant and the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the alleged cause of action true? 3) What decree or order? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, he examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25, In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 13 documents as Exs.D1 to D13. 3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and issue No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed and decree for the permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except in due course of law. 3.5. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.89/2002 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.302/2007 on the final of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri. 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Who is in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree requires interference by this Court? 3) What order? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as per the final order. 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree requires interference by this Court? 3) What order? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, conforming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 20.09.2013. 3.8. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 02.06.2015, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: 1) Whether the courts below are justified in coming to conclusion that the plaintiff cannot be evicted except under the due process of law, even though, Ex.D-7 and D-1 clearly shows that the defendant is in possession of the property? 2) Whether the courts below have wrongly interpreted the report of the Tahasildar with regard to the spot inspection and also the order of the KAT passed in the case? 5. Heard the arguments of Sri Rajesh A, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and also Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit property was granted in favour the plaintiff and the saguvali chit was issued. He submits that the defendant got managed to enter his name in the revenue records and based on the revenue records, the defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. He submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. He submits that both the Courts below are justified in passing the impugned orders. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to prove his possession of the suit schedule property he produced the documents i.e., Exs.D1 and D7 and he also submits that the Court below have failed to consider the report of the Tahsildar regarding the spot inspection and order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record. He submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the entire evidence on record. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and 2: Substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other and are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the plaintiff and saguvali chit was issued on 19.02.1994. The plaintiff based on the grant made by the Tahsildar, is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The revenue records were changed in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, to prove his case produced the documents. The defendant contended that the said suit land was granted in favour of the defendant. The order of grant the made in favour of the defendant was challenged by the plaintiff before the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the defendant challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.30/85-86. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner has produced the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner marked as Ex.P21. The defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.518/1999, wherein the Tribunal has recorded a finding in para 12, which reads as follows: "Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the appeal before D.C. challenging the grant in favour of this defendant. No one challenged the order of A.C. in divesting or appropriation of 3 acres of land and formation of blocks. So, this order has to be upheld. It appears that on the basis of this order, blocks were formed and respondent No.1 granted Block No.1. On the basis of this order the Tahsildar will form blocks or already formed blocks and the application of appellant is yet to be considered. If there is such grant order in favour of appellant, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge it. So having regard to these facts the impugned order of D.C. is not at all sustainable in law." 11. If there is such grant order in favour of appellant, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge it. So having regard to these facts the impugned order of D.C. is not at all sustainable in law." 11. From the perusal of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, it clearly discloses that there is no grant order in favour of the defendant. The said application is yet pending for consideration. The plaintiff has produced the saguvali chit marked as Ex.P1. It is clearly discloses that the said suit property was granted in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has also produced the revenue records to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. In rebuttal, the defendant has produced the documents i.e., Ex.D1 is the RTC extract. The said entry was made based on the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri as per Ex.D6. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has already recorded the finding that the application of the defendant is yet pending for consideration and also Ex.D7 is the inspection report. When the question of application for grant is still pending. The defendant if at all is in possession of the property, if any order is passed by the Revenue Authority granting the said land, he can evict the plaintiff by due process of law. The trial Court has decreed the suit by granting injunction against the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, except due process of law. However, the trial Court has protected the interest of the defendant. The First Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and considered Ex.D1, Ex.D7 and the order passed by the KAT. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts against the defendant and also recorded that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property based on Ex.P1. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The courts below have rightly considered the entitle evidence on record and passed the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. iv. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.