JUDGMENT : RAJESH RAI K., J. 1. The plaintiff’s legal heirs have filed this regular second appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of land measuring to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.12 of Kotaganahalli Village, Sarajapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk (for brevity " Suit Schedule Property "). 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the entire village of Kotaganahalli is a Jodi Village. In view of the Personal and Miscellaneous Inam Abolition Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), the larger extent of the suit schedule property vested with the State Government. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff one late L. Chinna Reddy was in physical and continuous possession of the suit schedule property i.e., prior to the vesting of the same with the Government. 5. After the Act came into force, the late L. Chinna Reddy made an application under Section 10 of the Act. The said application came to be rejected on 30.09.1964 in case No.77/1959-60. Subsequently, the suit schedule property vested with the Government. On the basis of the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the name of the late L. Chinna Reddy has been continued in the revenue documents i.e., the RTC and pahani in column No.12(2) till his death. After his demise, the plaintiff being his only son continued the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 6. Later, the revenue authorities have lawfully collected the tax from the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff has perfected his right, title by way of adverse possession. Since the possession of the plaintiff is not only within the knowledge of the defendants but also within the knowledge of the entire village of Kotagenahalli. 7. Things stood thus, defendant No.3-the Tahsildar issued a notice to the plaintiff to appear before him and place the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed his documents along with his statement before the Tahsildar and after receiving the same, the Tahsildar unattained the same. 8. Later on 12.01.2003, the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also made forcible attempt to take the possession. However, the plaintiff managed to resist the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed his documents along with his statement before the Tahsildar and after receiving the same, the Tahsildar unattained the same. 8. Later on 12.01.2003, the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also made forcible attempt to take the possession. However, the plaintiff managed to resist the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. 9. On service of the notice to the defendants, the learned Additional Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the defendants, but did not choose to file his written statement. On 08.07.2008, the learned Additional Government Pleader has filed I.A.No.5 under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file the written statement of the defendants and the said application was allowed and the defendants are permitted to file their written statement. However, the said I.A.No.5 was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, since the defendants have failed to pay the cost, the Trial Court struck off their defence. 10. In order to prove the case before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25. The defendants have neither examined any witness nor produced any documents. 11. On assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession and consequently, the defendants, their agents, servant or any subordinates officials are restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner. 12. Challenging to the said judgment, the defendants have approached the First Appellate Court by filing regular appeal in R.A.No.26/2013 and the First Appellate Court upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the plaintiff’s legal heirs have approached this Court by filing regular second appeal. 13. I have heard Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel and Sri.M.L. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the appellants so also Sri.Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-defendants. 14. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court has erred while re-appreciating the evidence on record. 13. I have heard Sri.G.A.Viswanatha Reddy, learned counsel and Sri.M.L. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the appellants so also Sri.Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-defendants. 14. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court has erred while re-appreciating the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years and cultivating the same without any interruption of the defendants. The possession of the plaintiff is adverse to the interest of the defendants. As such, the plaintiff perfected his title by way of adverse possession. He also contended that, though the application filed by the late L. Chinna Reddy was rejected under Section 10 of the Act, that itself cannot be a ground to deny the prayer of the plaintiff for adverse possession. 15. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit. The findings of the Trial Court was based on evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Among these witnesses, PWs.2 and 3 independent witnesses who are neighbours categorically deposed that the plaintiff and his father late L.Chinna Reddy were in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years without any interruption against the interest of the defendants. As such, the possession of the plaintiff is settled possession. In such circumstance, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 16. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the defendants contended that the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the regular appeal by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff after meticulously examining the evidence on record. According to him, it is not in dispute that the application filed by the late L. Chinna Reddy under Section 10 of the Act for grant of occupancy right of the suit schedule property was rejected and as such, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter. Further the plaintiff also failed to prove his settled possession in the suit schedule property for a period of more than 30 years. In such circumstance, the plea of adverse possession alleged by the plaintiff is not sustainable under law. He also contended that there was no notice was issued to the respondents under Section 80 of CPC before filing the suit. In such circumstance, the plea of adverse possession alleged by the plaintiff is not sustainable under law. He also contended that there was no notice was issued to the respondents under Section 80 of CPC before filing the suit. 17. Nonetheless, the plaintiff has not sought for any permission to exempt from issuing such notice or any emergent circumstance. On that count also the suit is liable to be dismissed. The said aspect of the matter is rightly appreciated by the First Appellate Court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. On examining the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following substantial questions of law raises for consideration:- "1) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, when the application filed by the father of the plaintiff for registration of occupancy of the suit schedule property under Section 10 of the Act is rejected? 2) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified by rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction despite observing that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?" 19. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence and documents placed before this Court. 20. As could be gathered from records, late L. Chinna Reddy was in possession of suit schedule property ever since from 1959 i.e., after the Act came into force. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff's father filed an application under Section 10 of the Act for registration of occupancy right in respect of the suit schedule property. However, his application was rejected by the authority on 30.09.1964 in case No.77/1959-60. The said order has not been challenged by the father of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff and the same has attained finality. It is the contention of the plaintiff that even after that he continued in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the revenue entries of the suit schedule property mutated in the name of the plaintiff after demise of his father. 21. It is the contention of the plaintiff that even after that he continued in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and all the revenue entries of the suit schedule property mutated in the name of the plaintiff after demise of his father. 21. On careful examination of the records, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the possession of the plaintiff was adverse to the interest of defendants. The plaintiff is in settled possession in the suit schedule property. The said aspect was fortified by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are the neighbours of the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the documents placed by the plaintiff i.e., Exs.P3 to P11 the RTC extracts and Exs.P12 to P18 the tax paid receipt clearly discloses that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. However, in view of the dismissal of the application filed by the father of the plaintiff under Section 10 of the Act way back in the year 1964 and the said order was not challenged by the plaintiff or his father, as rightly held by the First Appellate Court, the said order is final and conclusive under the Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter in view of the settled position in the case of Pushpagiri Math vs. Kooparaju Veerabadra Rao and another, AIR 1994 SC 1190 , Mudukappa vs. Rudrappa, 1994 (2) SCC 57 . In such circumstances, the prayer of the plaintiff to declare him as the owner in respect of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession is rightly rejected by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, I answer the first substantial question of law against the plaintiff. 22. As discussed supra, undisputedly the plaintiff is in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property ever since from 1959. He continued in the possession of the suit schedule property even after rejection of his application for occupancy right under section 10 of the Act. At the cost of repetition, on perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documents placed before me, the same clearly depicts that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. 23. It is settled possession of law even in cases where title is in dispute, if the plaintiff’s possession is peaceful and protected, an injunction can be granted without a declaration of title. 24. 23. It is settled possession of law even in cases where title is in dispute, if the plaintiff’s possession is peaceful and protected, an injunction can be granted without a declaration of title. 24. In such circumstance, the First Appellate Court ought to have granted the prayer of the injunction in favour of the plaintiff to protect his possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The other reason of the First Appellate Court is that suit is not maintainable on the ground that no notice has been issued to the defendants cannot be accepted for the simple reason that though the defendants have appeared before the Trial Court after service summons they were not contested the matter except filing the written statement. In such circumstance, I answer the second substantial question of law in favour of the plaintiff. 25. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that, the Trial Court is justified in granting the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and the First Appellate Court is erred in dismissing the suit in total. In that view of the matter, the second appeal is allowed- in-part. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside to the extent of dismissing the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. However, the remaining portion of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court to an extent of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit schedule property is affirmed. 26. In view of the same, the defendants, their men, agents, servant and sub-ordinate officials are restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner without due process of law.