JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. The Appellant filed this Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2014 passed in RA No.49 of 2010 by the learned Fast Track Court, Mandya ('First Appellate Court' for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court, [OS No.227 of 2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya]. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the regarding the property bearing Survey No.141 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas, situated at Shivapura Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. The plaintiff acquired the said property through her mother and she is in absolute possession and enjoyment over the said property since from the date of its acquisition. It is contented that the plaintiff availed a loan of Rs.3,58,900/- from the State Bank of Mysore, Halligere Branch by mortgaging the suit schedule property. It is contented that the defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff, and has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contented that the description and measurement shown in the suit schedule is incorrect, and it is denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is contented that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; rather the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the revenue records stand in the name of the defendant. It is contended that, the suit property is in possession of the defendant and his ancestors for more than 100 years. It is contended that, a suit for mere injunction without seeking a relief of declaration is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss suit. 5. It is contended that, the suit property is in possession of the defendant and his ancestors for more than 100 years. It is contended that, a suit for mere injunction without seeking a relief of declaration is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issue: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim? (4) For what decree or order? Addl. Issue dated 7-3-2008: Whether the plaintiff proves that she has obtained loan of Rs.3,58,90/- from State Bank of Mysore, Hallegere Branch, Mandya by mortgaging the suit schedule property? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined herself as PW-1, examined 2 witnesses as PWs-2 and 3 and marked 3 documents as Exhibits P1 to P3. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and examined 4 witnesses as DWs-2 to 5 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits D1 to D16. 7. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue in the affirmative and issue No.4, as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 19.04.2008, and defendants, his agents, etc., were permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 8. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in OS No.227 of 2006, preferred an appeal in RA No.49 of 2010 on the file of the First Appellate Court. 9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S No.227/2006 dated 19-04-2008 is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable under law? (2) What Order? 10. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 as per the final order. (2) What Order? 10. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 18.02.2014 and set aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No.227 of 2006, and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was also made clear that the observation and discussion made in the First Appellate Court’s judgment will not create any right, title or interest towards the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. 11. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RA No.49 of 2010, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 12. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. To prove the possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has examined 2 witnesses as PWs-2 and 3, and produced 3 documents. The First Appellate Court has not adequately considered the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and the documents produced. He submits that, the First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the title deed. He submits that, in a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to consider, whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and alleged interference on the suit schedule property as on the date of filing suit. The First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. He also submits that, the First Appellate Court has not considered the admission of the defendant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. None appears for the defendant/respondent before this Court. 15. This Court, vide order dated 20.07.2016, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court without considering the material documents Exs.P1 to P3 which clearly indicates that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the factum of Smt. Kempamma having transferred the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff is in possession is not disputed by defendant ? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in holding that the plaintiff should have filed declaration and title over the suit property, therefore the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable, when the plaintiff filed the suit only for bare injunction and the plaintiff has proved her title, the material documents clearly indicates her possession? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, without following the procedure as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure ? 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case ? Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 to 4: 16. Substantial question of law Nos.1 to 4 are interrelated with each other and hence, taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 17. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and deposed that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property by way of succession. The plaintiff, to prove her possession, produced the following documents: a) Exhibit P1 is the RTC extract, which discloses that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property to the extent of 5 acres 14 guntas. b) Exhibit P2 is the mutation extract, which discloses that 2 acres 22 guntas was transferred by Kempamma in the name of the plaintiff. c) Exhibit P3 is the encumbrance certificate. 17.1. Plaintiff also examined two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3, who have deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 18. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and he has deposed that the plaintiff is not owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and he deposed that the boundaries and measurements shown in the suit schedule property are incorrect. To prove the defence of the defendant, he has produced the following documents: a) Exhibit D1 is the genealogical tree. b) Exhibit D2 is the khadar document. c) Exhibit D3 is the Akara Band extract. d) Exhibit D4 is the RTC extract of the land in Sy.No.141. To prove the defence of the defendant, he has produced the following documents: a) Exhibit D1 is the genealogical tree. b) Exhibit D2 is the khadar document. c) Exhibit D3 is the Akara Band extract. d) Exhibit D4 is the RTC extract of the land in Sy.No.141. e) Exhibit D5 is the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 08.09.2006. f) Exhibits D6 to D9 are the letters/representations given by the defendant to the Deputy Commissioner/Tahsildar. g) Exhibit D10 is the letter dated 28.09.2006. h) Exhibit D11 is the notice issued by the Revenue Inspector. i) Exhibit D12 is the report given by the Deputy Tahsildar to Tahsildar. j) Exhibit D13 is the mahazar copy. k) Exhibit D14 is the voters’ list. l) Exhibit D15 is the endorsement dated 18.10.2006 issued by the Tahasildar. m) Exhibit D16 is the stay order. 18.1. The defendant also examined 4 witnesses, who deposed that the defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. 19. From the perusal of the entire records, although the plaintiff has produced Exhibit P1, an RTC extract, which discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of the land to the extent of 5 acres 14 guntas. However, the said Exhibit P1 is contrary to Exhibit P2, which discloses that 2 acres 22 guntas was transferred in favour of the plaintiff by Kempamma. When the mother (Kempamma) has transferred the land to the extent of 2 acres 22 guntas, the plaintiff has not explained how the plaintiff came in possession of the land to the extent of 5 acres 14 guntas. 20. The defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff cannot claim more area, which has come to her share by her mother Kempamma measuring 2 acres 22 guntas. As rightly pointed out by the defendant, there is a serious dispute regarding the boundaries, and extent of the suit schedule property. In a suit for bare injunction, the Court is required to see whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and alleged interference as on the date of filing a suit. As there is a serious dispute regarding the boundaries, and extent of the suit schedule property, the scope of a suit for bare injunction is very limited. The Court cannot expand the suit for permanent injunction into a declaration of title. As there is a serious dispute regarding the boundaries, and extent of the suit schedule property, the scope of a suit for bare injunction is very limited. The Court cannot expand the suit for permanent injunction into a declaration of title. As observed above, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff ought to have sought for a relief of declaration of title. On the contrary, the plaintiff did not seek the relief of declaration. The First Appellate Court, considering the exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others , (2008) 4 SCC 594 , has rightly held that the suit for bare permanent injunction is not maintainable. Hence, the First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and held that, the plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. 21. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial questions of law in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby confirmed; iii. A liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit, if so advised; iv. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.