JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and vacant possession by way of mandatory injunction is that she is the wife of late Sri Huchegowda. The suit schedule property was purchased by late Sri Huchegowda from its erstwhile owner by name Sri H.R. Veeregowda for valuable sale consideration under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.1978. In pursuance to the sale transaction, the said late Sri Huchegowda was put in possession of the suit property and ever since then the plaintiff along with her husband and other property members were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Even the Municipal Khatha pertaining to the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of late Sri Huchegowda and the said Sri Huchegowda has been playing taxes regularly pertaining to the suit schedule property. After the death of said Sri Huchegowda, the plaintiff, in her capacity as the legal representative of late Sri Huchegowda, got mutated the property in her name. In the meantime, the plaintiff suffered from ill-health, as such about 3 years prior to the institution of the suit, the plaintiff started residing with her grand-son at Davanagere for the purpose of treatment and the plaintiff could not come to Hassan for quite some time during her stay at Davanagere. But, after recovering from her ill-health when the plaintiff came to Hassan, to her utter shock, she found that the defendant No.1 and her father had put up a temporary structure over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff inquired with the defendant No.1 about the same, but the defendant No.1 claimed that the property belongs to her family and even proclaimed the relevant records are standing her name. Upon perusal of records, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the Municipal authorities had got created the records pertaining to suit schedule property in her favour by taking undue advantage of the absence of plaintiff. Upon perusal of records, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the Municipal authorities had got created the records pertaining to suit schedule property in her favour by taking undue advantage of the absence of plaintiff. In fact, neither the defendant No.1 nor her father have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the construction of the temporary shed put up by them is an attempt to knock off the property of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is filed seeking comprehensive relief of declaration and recovery of possession. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement. The very gist of the written statement is that claim made by the plaintiff is not correct. In fact the suit property is different from the property purchased under the sale deed, as such the suit is not maintainable. Further, it is contended that the description of the property stated in the plaint is incorrect and the plaintiff has filed a suit showing wrong boundaries just to confuse the Court and get an order in her favour. Further, it is contended that the structure put up by the defendant No.1 is not a temporary construction, in fact the same was made about 15 years prior to institution of the suit and the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property, since 1990. Further, the said construction put up by the plaintiff is well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and other concerned persons. Further, the suit property earlier belonged to Municipality, but since the defendant No.1 had made construction over the suit schedule property, her possession was recognized by the Municipality and the Khatha was made in her name by recognizing her possession. The defendant No.1 has been paying taxes with regard to the suit schedule property, as such plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 5. The defendant No.1 has been paying taxes with regard to the suit schedule property, as such plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 5. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1, framed the issues whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on the sale deed dated 27.12.1978, whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has illegally constructed temporary building in the suit schedule property, whether the defendant No.1 proves suit is not properly valued and whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and possession. 6. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record adduced before the Court, particularly taking note of the claim made by the plaintiff and based on the document of Ex.P2-sale deed and also other documents, extracted the boundaries mentioned in the document Ex.P2 and also taken note of the contention of defendant No.1 that sale deed is not in respect of the suit schedule property and in respect of the different property and also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Though, defendant No.1 contend that he had put up house in the year 1990 itself, but admission of the defendant No.1 was taken note of that cause of action arose in December, 2007, since he categorically admits that house found in Exs.D1 and D2 was constructed by her in the year December, 2007 which is extracted in paragraph No.58 and so also taken note of answer given by D.W.1 in paragraph No.44 that though she claims that construction was made by D.W.1 and property belongs to Municipality, she is not having any documentary proof with regard to the same and also allotment made to her and also categorically admitted that she has constructed the building without obtaining any license and also aware of the fact that while constructing the building, she has to obtain permission from the Municipality and also categorically admits that her husband is working in Bellary, Kamalapura Municipality and Municipality has not given any Grant Certificate in favour of D.W.1 and also categorically admits that she has not obtained any permission or sketch. Hence, comes to the conclusion that no obtained any permission to put up construction of the suit schedule property and also taken note of document of Exs.D1 and D2 existing over the suit property and same indeed an illegal construction put up by defendant No.1 and now, she is making an effort to pass off the documents related to properties at Siddayyanagar and also comes to the conclusion that the said defence was taken only to mislead the Court and detail order was passed, particularly considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that sale deed Ex.P2 which clearly discloses the description of the property and other documents substantiate the property stands in the name of the plaintiff and also Sale Certificate dated 27.06.1975 was also produced before the Court as Ex.P13. Though, defendant No.1 relies upon the document of photographs Exs.D1 and D2, but not placed any material to show that property was allotted by the Municipality and the fact that her husband is working in Municipality at Bellary is admitted in the cross-examination and taking advantage of the fact that plaintiff was not in the station, construction was made and the same was illegal construction. Hence, directed to remove the construction and handover the property in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.55/2019. The First Appellate Court also taking note of the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the points whether the Trial Court property appreciated oral and documentary evidence of both the parties in holding that plaintiff has established her title over the suit schedule property, whether Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant No.1 has illegally constructed temporary structure in suit property and whether Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction. The Trial Court having reconsidered the evidence available on record, answered point Nos.1 to 3 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that Trial Court properly appreciated the material the record and also defendant No.1 has illegally constructed the house in the property belonging to the plaintiff and also taken note of contents of document of Ex.P2-sale deed which pertains to the suit property and even suggestion was made to P.W.1 by learned counsel for the defendants that in terms of the sale deed, suit schedule property was not given to Sri Huchegowda and the said suggestion implies that the defendant No.1 admits Ex.P2-sale deed pertains to the suit schedule property and also taken note of answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 and he admits that the house in Exs.D1 and D2-photographs were constructed in the year 2007 and also taken note of the contention that he was in possession from 1990, but in order to prove that he was in possession from 1990, nothing is placed on record. In paragraph No.16 of the written statement, the defendant No.1 herself admits the identify of the suit property and moreover, plaintiff also produced Ex.P2-sale deed which pertains the property which was purchased by her husband from his vendor and moreover by producing the corroborative documentary evidence, the plaintiff has established the boundary as described in the plaintiff schedule which corresponds with the document of Ex.P2-sale deed. The First Appellate Court having reconsidered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and particularly, answer elicited from the mouth of D.W.1, categorically admits that he had not obtained any license or permission to construct the house and illegally constructed the same, that too, in the property of plaintiff and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. 8. The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal as against the concurrent finding is that both the Courts were not justified in holding that appointment of Court Commissioner is not required for proper identification of the property of both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 when the identity of the property itself is in dispute and also both the Courts have committed an error in holding that burden of proof is on the defendant No.1 and it is not discharged by the appellant/defendant No.1 and very approach of both the Courts, particularly in directing to handover possession of the property by removing structure is erroneous and hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of law. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also pleadings of the parties, proper issues were framed and allowed the parties to lead evidence, particularly taking note of the evidence of the plaintiff, it is very clear that Ex.P2 is the title deed in respect of the suit property and boundaries mentioned in the suit as well as the sale deed corroborates with each other and same was also taken note by the Trial Court. Though, defendant No.1 claims that property is situated at Siddayyanagar and not the suit schedule property and in order to substantiate the same, except producing the documents of Exs.D1 and D2-photographs nothing is placed on record to show that property situates at Siddayyanagar. Apart from that, defendant No.2-Municipality has issued notice in terms of Ex.P10 when claim was made by the plaintiff with regard to the construction made by the defendant No.1 and also it is clear admission that while constructing the building, not taken any permission or approval from the Municipality, but claims that property belongs to the Municipality, but defendant No.1 not claims that property belongs to him, but only contention is taken that Municipality permitted him to put up the construction. But, admission on the part of D.W.1 is very clear that no such permission or sanction was taken and also no plan was approved by the Municipality. But, admission on the part of D.W.1 is very clear that no such permission or sanction was taken and also no plan was approved by the Municipality. Apart from that, material discloses that husband of defendant No.1 is working in Kamalapura Municipality at Bellary District and also claims that this property belongs to Municipality, but in order to prove the fact that property belongs to Municipality also, nothing is placed on record and both the Courts having taken note of the schedule mentioned in Ex.P2 as well schedule mentioned in the suit as well as answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 rightly comes to the conclusion that claim made by the plaintiff is in respect of the suit schedule property and the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant indicating the substantial question of law that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property. But, material clearly discloses that the defendant No.1 had constructed the building illegally without obtaining any sanction either from Municipality or from the competent authority, but only claims that property belongs to Municipality, but he had put up construction in the suit schedule property and when the identity of the property is taken note of in terms of Ex.P2 as well as answers elicited from the mouth of D.W.1, the same is discussed in paragraph No.44 by the Trial Court and also a false defence was taken that defendant No.1 is in possession from 1990. But, categorically admitted by D.W.1 that house found in Exs.D1 and D2 was constructed by her in December, 2007 and not in 1990 and the same is also discussed by the Trial Court in paragraph No.58. 10. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material on record, in detail taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of very contention in paragraph No.16 of the written statement, wherein the defendant No.1 herself admits the identity of the suit property. 10. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed the material on record, in detail taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also taken note of very contention in paragraph No.16 of the written statement, wherein the defendant No.1 herself admits the identity of the suit property. When such admission was made and also claims the right in respect of the suit schedule property and also taken note of Ex.P2-sale deed which establishes that husband of the plaintiff has purchased the property from his vendor and moreover, placed on record, all the documents and also taken note of the admission on the part of D.W.1 and all these materials are considered by the First Appellate Court. When such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there is a dispute with regard to the identity of the property cannot be accepted and both the Courts have taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, especially the admission of D.W.1 with regard to the construction made without any permission or any approved plan and that too the property which the defendant claims belongs to Municipality, but in order to prove the property belongs to Municipality also, no documents before the Court i.e., either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the very contention that both the Courts have committed an error and given perverse finding cannot be accepted and unless perverse finding is found, question of admitting the second appeal does not arise and both the question of fact and question of law are considered and it is not a fit case to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following : ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.