JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. On 12.11.2025, when this matter was listed for admission, this Court elaborately heard the matter and when this Court about to dictate the order, at that juncture, the counsel appearing for the appellants seeks 10 days time to negotiate the matter with the respondents. Hence, this Court granted time. Today, the counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants made an attempt to negotiate the matter with the respondents and the counsel for the respondents submits that parties are not in good terms and they are agitating this matter from 2009 and almost about 16 years has been elapsed and no chances of settlement. Hence, this Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and defendants are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is mainly contented that they have put up a Mangalore titled house and they are residing in the said house. The plaintiffs have the property bearing Sy.No.1/28 measuring 20 guntas which was previously belongs to defendant No.6. In the said property, plaintiff No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of approximately 6 guntas by growing Bhage tree, 2 Banyan trees, 3 Neem trees and 1 Mango tree aged about 8 years. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that since from 50 years, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and also storing hay-stock, wood, grass and waste materials. The plaintiffs are also rearing cattle and buffalo. Plaintiff No.2 is also in possession from 50 years in the same survey number approximately 4 guntas without any interruption from anybody and in that property he also stored waste materials, wood and tethering is cattle and plaintiff No.3 is in possession of 3 guntas by storing waste materials and grass. 4. It is also contended that defendant No.4 is having 2 guntas of land in same survey number and he also stored waste materials and having cattle shed, etc., and also put up toilet room. 4. It is also contended that defendant No.4 is having 2 guntas of land in same survey number and he also stored waste materials and having cattle shed, etc., and also put up toilet room. Defendant No.5 is in possession of one gunta of land before his house and he also put up cattle shed, hullumede and stored waste materials and also put up lavatory. Therefore, they claimed that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. In the month of July 2009, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with defendant No.6 tried to purchase 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/2B. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 were well aware of the fact that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are in adverse position. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 immediately issued legal notice to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6. The legal notice was dully served upon them and they have not replied to it. Subsequently, on 07.08.2009 the plaintiffs gave representation to the Tahsildar requesting to grant the said property to them. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 gave complaint to the police and police authorities gave NCR and warned defendants not to interfere. Inspite of that, defendant Nos.1 to 3 proclaimed in the village that they will purchase the property bearing Sy.No.1/2B measuring 20 guntas from defendant No.6. The plaintiffs claimed that they are poor and illiterate and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are powerful persons and hence, approached the Court by filing a suit claiming that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and they acquired the property by way of adverse possession. 5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants Nos.1 to 3 and 6 appeared through their counsel and defendant No.4 appeared through separate counsel. They have filed separate written statement. Defendant No.4 joined with the plaintiffs and filed written statement admitting the contents of the plaint averments. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 denied the plaint averments in toto. It is specifically contended that defendant No.6 is the lawful owner in possession of the suit schedule property. They have filed separate written statement. Defendant No.4 joined with the plaintiffs and filed written statement admitting the contents of the plaint averments. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 denied the plaint averments in toto. It is specifically contended that defendant No.6 is the lawful owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Originally, the suit schedule property belongs to the grandfather of defendant No.6 and he executed a registered Will dated 16.12.1974 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 and after the death of his grandfather, he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is the contention that the property stands in the name of defendant No.6 and all revenue records stands in the name of defendant No.6. The survey department made durasti work. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 and the plaintiffs have no any right over the suit schedule property. They are the bajudars of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is situated in the prime area of Marehalli Village which fetches good rate. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendant nos.4 and 5 having their eyes on the suit schedule property and the ingredients of adverse possession are not forthcoming in the pleadings. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 examined as PW1 to PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P20. On the other hand, PA holder of defendant No.6 examined as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D12. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to a conclusion that plaintiffs have not proved that they are the absolute owner and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and hence, they are not entitled for the relief of adverse possession since the adverse possession ingredients have not been proved. While dismissing the suit, in paragraph 15, considered that the ingredients of adverse possession was not proved by the plaintiffs and the standard of proof in case of adverse possession is too higher than pedestal because the person who claims adverse possession is going to adversely lawful possession. While dismissing the suit, in paragraph 15, considered that the ingredients of adverse possession was not proved by the plaintiffs and the standard of proof in case of adverse possession is too higher than pedestal because the person who claims adverse possession is going to adversely lawful possession. Therefore, the claimant of possession has to be in possession because grant of adverse possession is based on sound principles of justice, equity and good consonance. 7. The Trial Court also taken note of the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 103 in the case of HEMAJI WHAGAGI BHAI JAT V/S BHIKHABHAI KHENGARBHAI HARJIJAN wherein also discussion was made with regard to the adverse possession which requires strict proof of the essential ingredients of adverse possession and detailed discussion was made in paragraph 17 with regard to the evidence and the admissions on the part of PW1 to PW3 and held that plaintiffs have not produced any single document regarding the pendency of RRT proceedings. In the cross- examination PW1, he admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he is aged about 67 years and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are also aged about 50 and 60 years, because the age of plaintiffs is also important in deciding the case since they claim that more than 50 years, they are in possession of the property and the same has been discussed in paragraph 18. In paragraph 20, taken note of Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC with regard to the power of attorney holder can depose on behalf of the principal about the facts within the knowledge. The Trial Court also taken note that an application was filed under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC for withdrawal of the suit when the case was posted for judgment with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action and Trial Court held that firstly, it is the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the suit, but he must show the formal defects which necessarily defeat his right so as to withdraw the suit. The Trial Court held that no such technical defects are shown for granting permission to withdraw. Hence, comes to the conclusion that it is not a case even for granting the permission to withdraw the suit and rejected the application and so also dismissed the suit. 8. The Trial Court held that no such technical defects are shown for granting permission to withdraw. Hence, comes to the conclusion that it is not a case even for granting the permission to withdraw the suit and rejected the application and so also dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the Points that whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit by way of adverse possession and whether there was any interference by the defendants and whether the judgment of the Trial Court requires interference of the Court. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered Point Nos.1 and 2 as negative in coming to the conclusion that burden is on the appellants to prove that they were in adverse possession with the knowledge of the defendants and also they have to prove the animus and invoked Sections 101 to 103 of Indian Evidence Act and held that the averments made in the written statement and also the contention made by the plaintiffs taken note of and even while considering the case of adverse possession, the First Appellate Court in detail gone into the oral and documentary evidence and comes to the conclusion that the very ingredients of adverse possession is not proved since there is no any specific pleading that they are in possession with the knowledge of the defendants and defendants allowed them to be in their possession with their knowledge only and detailed discussion was made and comes to the conclusion that when no ingredients of adverse possession is made out, question of granting the relief of adverse possession does not arise at all. Ex.P9 to P11 are not reflected that from any place taken the photographs but those photographs are not the ground to prove that the plaintiffs are in adverse possession of the suit schedule property. The katha of the suit schedule property not changed into the names of the plaintiffs on the basis of adverse possession till date. Ex.P9 to P11 are not reflected that from any place taken the photographs but those photographs are not the ground to prove that the plaintiffs are in adverse possession of the suit schedule property. The katha of the suit schedule property not changed into the names of the plaintiffs on the basis of adverse possession till date. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs not proved the necessary ingredients of adverse possession and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in appreciating the material on record and despite the fact that DW1 has admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in his cross- examination, the Trial Court failed to grant the relief of permanent injunction. Even counsel would vehemently contend that when an application is filed to withdraw the suit by the plaintiffs with liberty to file a fresh suit, that too in absence of any objection by the defendants, rejected the same. The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking appointment of a court commissioner in a suit for declaration of permanent injunction and failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 10. Per contra, the counsel appearing to the respondents would vehemently contend that both the Courts have taken note that when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction on the ground of adverse possession, must prove the necessary ingredients of adverse possession. The same has not been done. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that suit was filed in 2009 and permission was sought to withdraw the suit in the fag end when the matter was posted for judgment that is in 2014 and the same was also taken note of by the Trial Court while rejecting the application and to giving the permission also technical defect must be shown and the same was not shown. Hence, rejected the same. Thus, question of admitting the appeal framing substantial question of law does not arise. 11. Hence, rejected the same. Thus, question of admitting the appeal framing substantial question of law does not arise. 11. Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also considering the pleadings of the parties, it discloses that the plaintiffs claim the relief of adverse possession and to declare them as owners of the property by way of adverse possession. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, taken note of the very pleading on the part of the plaintiffs which they have pleaded, particularly in paragraph 15 and discussed with regard to the necessary ingredients of adverse possession and also taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HEMAJI WHAGAGI BHAI JAT referred supra with regard to the adverse possession is concerned and also the principles taken note of in the said judgment. In the light of the contention that they are in possession for more than 50 years as claimed by the plaintiffs was taken note of in paragraph 17 regarding the age is concerned. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he is aged about 67 years and so also in respect of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and same was discussed in paragraph 18. If the same is computed to the age of PW2 and PW3, according to them, they entered into the possession of the suit property when they are minors. At the time of entering the possession by the plaintiffs, the defendants Nos.4 and 5 are also minors as per the cause title of the plaint. All these factors were taken note of when they pleaded that they are in possession from last 50 years. 12. Apart from that, the Trial Court also taken note that defendant No.6 examined power of attorney holder on his behalf and Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC also discussed to know that whether the same is within his knowledge. On perusal of the evidence of DW1, it discloses that he know each fact about the case and about the nature of the right claimed by defendant No.6 and his evidence also taken note of. On perusal of the evidence of DW1, it discloses that he know each fact about the case and about the nature of the right claimed by defendant No.6 and his evidence also taken note of. Apart from that the application was filed for withdrawal of the suit in 2014 at the fag end when the case was posted for judgment that too when they have claimed the adverse possession from 2009 and technical defects was not shown to withdraw the suit. Hence, rejected the said application and reasoning was also given by the Trial Court while rejecting the application. Even the First Appellate Court also considered the contention of the plaintiffs and held that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove with regard to the adverse possession and detailed order was passed in coming to the conclusion that no ingredients of adverse possession is proved. Even the appellants are also not sure about the claim made by them with regard to the declaration on the ground of adverse possession. When an application was filed, the matter was posted for judgment and the said fact was taken note of by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law. 13. The counsel appearing to the appellants would contend that this Court can give liberty to seek for the relief of permanent injunction by filing a fresh suit. The said submission also cannot be accepted for the reason that when the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded before the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration that they are in adverse possession of the suit property with the knowledge of the defendants and the same has not been considered by both the Courts. Thus, giving of such liberty also does not arise. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellants’ counsel to grant such liberty. Hence, no merit in the second appeal to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.