JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.31/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The deceased appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff acquired the suit schedule properties under a registered Will dated 21.03.1985, wherein the plaintiff's father bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and other properties in favour of the defendant. The father passed away on 23.11.1987. Based on the registered Will, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties and the defendant is the owner and in possession of other properties acquired under the said registered Will. It is contended that the defendant is also the brother of the plaintiff and is not in good terms with the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. On 01.07.2007, the defendant tried to trespass into the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff resisted his illegal act. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is admitted that the plaintiff's father bequeathed the properties under a registered Will dated 21.03.1985. It is contented that the plaintiff has filed a suit on the false and baseless grounds and the plaintiff has challenged the Will to gain unfair advantage over the defendant and there has never been any dispute about the apportionment of their share as per the Will. The plaintiff filed a caveat with a view to provoke the defendant. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 16.03.2006 making false and vexatious allegation for which the defendant replied to the legal notice. The plaintiff filed a caveat with a view to provoke the defendant. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 16.03.2006 making false and vexatious allegation for which the defendant replied to the legal notice. Thereafter, kept quiet for some time. Now, again he started his old habits of mischief. It is contented that the defendant is the owner of the agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.56/62 measuring 1-37.50 acres in K.Badaga village of Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu. He converted 0.10 acres out of the said land for non-agricultural purpose by the order of the Assistant Commissioner and obtained permission to construct a single storied house. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file a suit. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following recasted issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that there was interference caused by the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction as prayed for? 4) What order or decree? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, and marked 28 documents as Exs.P1 to P28. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and marked 39 documents as Exs.D1 to D39 3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, and issue No.4 as per the order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 29.06.2009 and the defendant, his legal representatives etc. were restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiff. 3.5. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.83/2007 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.31/2009 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri. 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff proved the alleged interference by the defendant for his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint? 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff proved the alleged interference by the defendant for his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as alleged in the plaint? 2) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is required to be interfered with? 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 the negative, point No.2 in the affirmative and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.83/2007 and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3.8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.31/2009, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 27.01.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “In a suit for perpetual injunction filed between the brothers based on a Will executed by their father, in the absence of any dispute regarding the boundaries to which each of them succeeded under the Will, was the lower appellate Court justified in reversing the judgment and decree of perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court?" 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and also the learned counsel for the defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that there is a mis-description of the properties. He submits that the plaintiff has shown the description of the suit schedule properties in the plaint, but the defendant has not specifically denied the description of the suit schedule properties. He submits that the defendant has not denied the description of the suit schedule properties. He submits that there should be a specific denial as per Order VIII Rule 3 of the CPC. He submits that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to Order VIII Rule 3 of the CPC. He submits that there is no dispute regarding the execution of the registered Will by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and the other non-suited properties in favour of the defendant. He submits that there is no dispute regarding the execution of the registered Will by the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and the other non-suited properties in favour of the defendant. He submits that DW.1 has admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of 'C' schedule property. He submits that the First Appellate Court has overlooked the admission of DW.1 and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the description shown in the suit schedule properties is incorrect. He also submits the First Appellate Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment has discussed that there is a mis-description of the properties shown in the plaint schedule and he submits that the First Appellate Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. He submits that there is a serious dispute regarding the description of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable. He submits that impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Reg. Substantial Question of Law: The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1. He deposed that the suit schedule properties and other properties were owned and possessed by the father of plaintiff and the defendant i.e., Nanjappa. During his lifetime, he had executed a registered Will bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and other non-suited properties were bequeathed in favour of the defendant under a registered Will dated 21.03.1985. The father of the plaintiff and the defendant i.e., Nanjappa passed away on 23.11.1987. After his demise, the plaintiff and the defendant got transferred the properties bequeathed in their favour respectively. The name of the plaintiff is shown in the records as a owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. After his demise, the plaintiff and the defendant got transferred the properties bequeathed in their favour respectively. The name of the plaintiff is shown in the records as a owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. The defendant tried to trespass into the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, produced the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P28. Ex.P2 is the mutation register extract, which discloses that the suit schedule properties were transferred in the name of the plaintiff based on the registered Will executed by Nanjappa in favour of plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff to prove the possession over the suit schedule properties, examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3, who have deposed that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant tried to trespass into the possession of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiff resisted the act of the defendant in trespassing the suit schedule properties. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief, and marked 39 documents as Exs.D1 to D39. 10. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is an undisputed fact that the suit schedule properties and non-suited properties were owned and possessed by Nanjappa. During his lifetime, he had executed a registered Will dated 21.03.1985. He had bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff and non-suited properties in favour of the defendant. He passed away on 23.11.1987. After his demise, the suit schedule properties were transferred in the name of the plaintiff. To prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff has produced a certified copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.2/2006 at Ex.P10, wherein the plaintiff filed a suit against the Commissioner City Municipal Council, Madikeri and the Commissioner, MUDA, Madikeri for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed and the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri and the Commissioner, MUDA, Madikeri were restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering or trespassing in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also produced a certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.2/2006 at ExP11. The said suit was decreed and the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Madikeri and the Commissioner, MUDA, Madikeri were restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering or trespassing in any manner with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also produced a certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.2/2006 at ExP11. The subject matter of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.2/2006 are the subject matter of this instant suit, wherein the Civil Court has already recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties in the said suit. The defendant filed an application in I.A.No.3 for impleading himself as defendant No.3. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2006. The order on I.A.No.3 is marked as Ex.P14. The defendant did not challenge the order on I.A. No.3 passed in O.S.No.2/2006. The defendant is aware about the decree passed in O.S.No.2/2006, wherein the Civil Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Further, DW.1 in the cross-examination, has admitted that the plaintiff is in possession of 'C' schedule property. The First Appellate Court overlooked the admission of DW.1 in the course of cross-examination. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court solely on the ground that there is a mis-description of the suit schedule properties. 11. The defendant for the first time has raised the issue before the First Appellate Court. Although, the defendant has filed a written statement, the defendant has not denied the description of the suit schedule properties in the written statement. There is no specific denial in the written statement. If there is no specific denial in the written statement, as per proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC, it shall be deemed admitted. When the defendant has not denied the description of the suit schedule properties, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment solely on the ground that the description of the suit schedule properties bears a mis- description of the suit schedule properties and further, the First Appellate Court has relied upon the judgments of this Court, and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove regarding the description of the suit schedule properties and interference. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC, and it has also ignored the admission of DW.1 and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question in the negative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 20.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.31/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Madikeri is hereby set aside. iii. The judgment and decree dated 29.06.2009 passed in O.S.No.83/2007 by the learned Principal, Civil Judgment (Jr. Dn.), Madikeri is restored. iv. No order as to the costs. v. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.