JUDGMENT : H. P. SANDESH, J. 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S.No.65/2019 while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. It is further contended that ‘A’ schedule property is the house property bearing Sl.No.221, assessment No.219/19-19 measuring 18.5 x 14.5 yards, situated at Kariganuru Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. The plaintiff also described the suit ‘B’ property as mud road, situated towards the north of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and the defendants’ house. It is contended that suit schedule ‘A’ property is ancestral property. His father had constructed black tiled house in it in the year 1947. Since then the family of the plaintiff is occupied and is residing in the said property without interference of anybody else. The property of the defendants is on the eastern side of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. They purchased the said house in the year 1973. The defendants purchased the house property in the year 1973. The erstwhile owner of the said property constructed the building with an understanding and using the eastern wall of the plaintiff’s house. Thus, the said wall is treated by both parties as common wall. The defendants in the last week of February threatened to demolish the said eastern wall and claiming that it is their own wall. The plaintiff has no objection to use the eastern wall of suit schedule ‘A’ property for the proposed construction of the defendants that is with demolishing the existing house. The plaintiff also contended that the defendants have stored construction materials over the northern road i.e., suit schedule ‘B’ property and thereby caused hindrance for the smooth use of the same. The property of the plaintiff mentioned at suit ‘A’ property is facing towards north. The family members of the plaintiff are using the northern suit schedule ‘B’ property to reach the eastern panchayath road since long time. The defendants stored brick stone, siege stone, sand and other construction materials over the suit schedule ‘B’ property. Since 19.06.2017, they are causing obstruction to user of it. The family members of the plaintiff are using the northern suit schedule ‘B’ property to reach the eastern panchayath road since long time. The defendants stored brick stone, siege stone, sand and other construction materials over the suit schedule ‘B’ property. Since 19.06.2017, they are causing obstruction to user of it. The son of the plaintiff gave the complaint against the defendants to the police and the police advised not to obstruct the user of such road. However, the defendants continued their obstruction in suit schedule ‘B’ property and hence, filed the suit. 4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint are false. However, the defendants admitted the existence of suit schedule ‘B’ property and also the situation of suit schedule ‘A’ property on the western side of their property bearing assessment No.71. The defendants denied the cause of action. It is also the contention that the brother of father of defendant No.1, namely A.Channabasappa S/o Basappa purchased the property bearing assessment No.71, consisting of 5 ankanas tiled house including eastern and southern canopy and southern backyard measuring east to west 13 yards, north to south 21 yards. The said property was purchased on 15.07.2022 from Mallikarjunappa, Basavarajappa and Gangamma W/o Channappa. The plaintiff did put the construction illegally, in and over the open space belonging to the defendants. There are no records as to the measurement of the suit schedule ‘A’ property and no records are standing in the name of the father of the plaintiff insofar as the said property is concerned. At the time of mutating the name of defendant No.1's brother, the property was measuring 18.20 yards and 12.10 yards and having open site on the western side. There is no common wall in between the plaintiff and defendants property. It is also the contention that there was partition amongst his family members on 27.01.1989 and in the said partition, the suit property No.64, assessment No.222 fell to the share of defendant No.1, which was measuring 40 x 60 feet. Though the measurement mentioned in that fashion, the actual measurement of the property is 42.9 feet and 69.3 feet. The plaintiff encroached the property belonging to the defendants and constructed the house abutting to the building of the defendants. Though the measurement mentioned in that fashion, the actual measurement of the property is 42.9 feet and 69.3 feet. The plaintiff encroached the property belonging to the defendants and constructed the house abutting to the building of the defendants. The defendant No.1 constructed backyard wall, repaired eastern wall and at that time, the plaintiff has not raised any objections. The plaintiff and the defendants have got two coconut trees in front of their respective houses and thereafter the suit schedule ‘B’ road is situated. The open space is situated in front of the alleged wall in between wall and the trees, wherein the defendants intend to extend the wall and put the zinc sheet ceiling. In order to stop the said work, the plaintiff filed the false suit with false cause of action. The defendants never obstructed the user of the suit schedule ‘B’ property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff being ex-serviceman is always doing atrocity and creating panchayath records in order to harass the defendants. 5. The Trial Court taking note of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the possession in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative. However, issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the negative in coming to the conclusion that there was no any interference by the defendants while answering issue No.2. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 in paragraph No.33 that no such damages are caused to his house property, more particularly on the eastern wall. P.W.1 further admitted in the cross-examination that no such registered documents are available insofar as suit schedule ‘A’ property is concerned and also no documents are available in the panchayath records as to the measurement of the same. Further, P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that, he has given the measurement of suit schedule ‘A’ property on the basis of possession and not on the basis of any of records. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. Further, P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that, he has given the measurement of suit schedule ‘A’ property on the basis of possession and not on the basis of any of records. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2. The evidence of D.W.3 is very clear that no such interference in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and specific defence also taken in the written statement that not caused any disturbance for using of ‘B’ schedule property and hence, answered issue No.2 in the negative and so also issue No.3 and dismissed the suit. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.47/2024. The First Appellate Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence as well as the contentions, which have been raised in the appeal memo and formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in answering issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative. The material evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 was discussed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the pleadings of the plaintiff that, in the year 1973, at eastern side of plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the brother of the defendant purchased the property and prior to purchase in 1973, vendor of the defendant’s property, constructed a house therein by constructing a eastern wall on plaint ‘A’ schedule property as common wall with permission of the plaintiff’s family and the same is discussed in paragraph No.20. In paragraph No.21, the First Appellate Court taken note of the evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 and with regard to the very existence of common wall is concerned, comes to the conclusion that question of demolishing the non- existing common wall by the defendants in the guise of constructing their house would not arise at all. The First Appellate Court also taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 that no damage was caused to his house property and also with regard to interference in respect of the eastern wall is concerned and in paragraph No.22, taken note of the existence of mud road and the very pleading of the defendants that at no point of time, made any interference in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and the same is also taken note of in paragraph No.23. Admittedly the plaint ‘B’ schedule property is a mud road and D.W.2 and D.W.3 are also making use of the said plaint ‘B’ schedule property. D.W.2 and D.W.3 have not felt having obstructed for making use of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property by the defendants, but whereas, they came before the Court deposing the evidence on behalf of the defendants and the very contention of storing of constructing material in front of the house of the defendants will not tantamount to causing obstruction for making use of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property by the defendants. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 to D.W.3, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error, particularly in relying upon the sale deed dated 15.07.1972, which is unrelated to the suit schedule ‘A’ property to ascertain the common wall of the plaintiff's house towards the eastern side. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts are not justified in rejecting the relief of permanent injunction. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly considering the pleadings and oral evidence, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established the possession in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. But while answering issue Nos.2 and 3, taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1, wherein he categorically admitted that no such damages are caused to his house property, more particularly on the eastern wall. Though it is the specific case of the plaintiff that causing damage to the eastern wall, but when such admission is given, the same goes against the very case of the plaintiff. P.W.1 further admitted in the cross- examination that, no such registered documents are available insofar as suit schedule ‘A’ property is concerned and no documents are available in panchayath records as well as in his custody and apart from that, he categorically admitted that he has given the measurement of ‘A’ schedule property on the basis of possession and not on the basis of any kind of records. The Trial Court even taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 as well as D.W.2. D.W.3 categorically deposed that no such interference is made for usage of the ‘B’ schedule property and it is specifically pleaded in the written statement by the defendants that not made any obstruction in respect of use of ‘B’ schedule property. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, particularly the admission on the part of P.W.1, answered issue Nos.2 and 3 that there was no any interference by the defendants. 10. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.20, 21, 22 and 23 that ‘B’ schedule property is a mud road and D.W.2 and D.W.3 are also making use of the said plaint ‘B’ schedule property. An observation is made that only to cause obstruction to the construction work undertook by the defendants, the plaintiff came up with present false suit with an ulterior motive. D.W.2 and D.W.3 have also admitted having stored construction materials in front of the house of the defendants and as such, act of the defendants would not lead to causing obstruction for making use of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. When such finding is given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, particularly on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3, I do not find any perversity in the finding of both the Courts. When such being the case and when both the factual aspects and also the question of law was taken note of by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and when the very admission on the part of P.W.1 goes against the case of the plaintiff, I do not find any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and to frame any substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.