JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This matter is listed for admission. The matter was heard earlier and time was granted and now the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and also confirming the same. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of permanent injunction, it is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of immovable properties measuring east to west 83 feet and north to south 69 feet. The plaintiff had purchased the aforesaid properties under three registered sale deeds from owners thereof, which is dated 16.03.1984 for a valuable consideration. The khata of the said properties are all transferred into the name of the plaintiff firm by the Mysore City Corporation, Mysore. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties is an old building aged about more than 100 years. Mysore City Corporation, Mysore had issued a notice under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act to the plaintiff in the year 1985, calling upon the plaintiff to demolish the schedule properties on the ground that the schedule properties are in a dilapidated condition and it is not fit for human habitation. The persons who are in occupation in the said properties have challenged the said order before the Standing Committee, MCC, Mysore and the said appeal has been dismissed confirming the action taken by the Commissioner. In the said appeal, they have urged that the schedule properties are in a good condition, but their defence has been negatived by the Standing Committee, MCC, Mysore. Against the order passed by the Standing Committee, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore, the persons who are in possession of the schedule properties had filed writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.12733, 12736/1999 and 31905/2000 i.e., filed by defendant No.1. In the said writ petitions, they have impleaded the Mysore City Corporation, Mysore as respondent No.1 therein and the plaintiff herein as respondent No.4 therein. After contest, the said writ petitions are all dismissed by its order dated 01.01.2002. In the said writ petitions, a Commissioner has been appointed and he has reported to the Court that the schedule properties are all in a dangerous condition and it is fit for demolition. 3. After contest, the said writ petitions are all dismissed by its order dated 01.01.2002. In the said writ petitions, a Commissioner has been appointed and he has reported to the Court that the schedule properties are all in a dangerous condition and it is fit for demolition. 3. It is also the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that against the said order, the aggrieved persons, including defendant No.1 herein have preferred writ appeals and the same are also dismissed by its order dated 26.06.2002. In the said judgment, it has been clearly stated that the aggrieved persons have submitted before the High Court that they have no grievance for demolition of the said building, which is in a dangerous condition. As per the report submitted by the Commissioner, he has submitted a report that facing 4 shops in Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore is in a dilapidated condition and the remaining portion i.e., the third hind portion of the entire building is in a dilapidated condition. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had initiated eviction proceedings against the tenants, who are in occupation of the four shops facing Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore i.e., the tenants, named, M.A. Shariff, Jethanand, K.Subramanyan and Arjun Bhatija for ejectment from the shops who are in occupation thereof in respect of some of the door numbers. After the contest, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession of the aforesaid premises has been allowed. The tenants who are in occupation have taken up the matter before the Apex Court and they have not succeeded in their appeal. Ultimately, the plaintiff has taken possession of the aforesaid shop premises, which are all mentioned in the schedule through the Court by filing execution petitions. After taking possession through the Court, the plaintiff is in possession of the aforesaid premises. It is also the contention that on 17.01.2008, MCC, Mysore had issued an order to the plaintiff for demolition of the schedule properties as per which the MCC, Mysore has requested the plaintiff to demolish the schedule properties at their own costs. After taking possession through the Court, the plaintiff is in possession of the aforesaid premises. It is also the contention that on 17.01.2008, MCC, Mysore had issued an order to the plaintiff for demolition of the schedule properties as per which the MCC, Mysore has requested the plaintiff to demolish the schedule properties at their own costs. Further, it has been stated that at the time of such demolition, the officials of the MCC, Mysore will be present at the spot and further calling upon the plaintiff that if they require any police help at the time of demolition, they have to seek assistance from the police authorities thereof. Again, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore had issued a letter dated 06.04.2015 as per which again the said authority had insisted the plaintiff to demolish the schedule properties at the earliest to avoid the danger to the public. 4. It is also contended that even though defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right whatsoever over the schedule properties, they are contending that they are the owners of the schedule properties and on that assumption, defendant No.1 had filed a original suit in O.S.No.204/2008 for declaration declaring that he is the absolute owner of the schedule properties against the plaintiff. The said suit was dismissed and directed to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- each to the contesting defendants i.e., the plaintiffs herein and defendant Nos.1 to 25 therein. Even though defendant No.1 is not the owner of the suit schedule properties as per the findings recorded in O.S.No.204/2008, only with an intention to harass and cheat the plaintiff, he has entered into an agreement of sale pertaining to the schedule properties with defendant No.3, which is dated 22.06.2015. As per the recitals mentioned therein, he has posed himself as the owner of the schedule properties in question and he has entered into a registered agreement of sale to sell the schedule properties to defendant No.3 for a sum of Rs.4,50,00,000/- even though the defendants have no right whatsoever over the schedule properties. The defendants among themselves have hand in glow and entered into the said agreement of sale, which is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice that the said agreement of sale entered by them is a false document and only with an intention to cheat the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had entered into such an agreement. The defendants among themselves have hand in glow and entered into the said agreement of sale, which is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice that the said agreement of sale entered by them is a false document and only with an intention to cheat the plaintiff, defendant No.1 had entered into such an agreement. The persons who are in possession of the schedule properties have removed their belongings. The plaintiffs have demolished the schedule properties on 13.02.2016. But the defendants have no right to remove the debris in the schedule properties urging that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the schedule properties on the ground that the defendants themselves are the owners thereof. Immediately, the plaintiff has lodged the complaint with the police on 20.02.2016, but the police authorities have refused to take any action. The defendants are not allowing the contractor of the plaintiff to remove the debris from the schedule properties and they themselves have removed the said wooden logs to defraud the plaintiff even though they have no right whatsoever over the same. The defendants have no such right to curtail the plaintiff’s right from entering into the schedule properties on the ground that they are the absolute owners of the schedule properties. Hence, filed this suit. 5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed their objection statement contending that they preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.204/2008 in R.F.A.No.185/2013. Though the said R.F.A. was filed on 31.01.2013, no process could be issued as defendant No.1 herein could not pay court fee of Rs.3,50,300/-. The same was paid on 10.03.2015 and order for issuance of notice on the respondents was made on 29.02.2015. Not all the 32 respondents were served with notice and some of them still have to appear. In R.F.A.No.185/2013 could not seek or secure any interim order. The agreement dated 22.06.2015 is cancelled by a registered deed of cancellation dated 25.02.2006. As such, the statement at paragraph No.14 of the plaint does not require any statement and R.F.A. is pending before the Court. 6. The Trial Court considering the issue between the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The agreement dated 22.06.2015 is cancelled by a registered deed of cancellation dated 25.02.2006. As such, the statement at paragraph No.14 of the plaint does not require any statement and R.F.A. is pending before the Court. 6. The Trial Court considering the issue between the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 in paragraph No.19 and in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 taken note of the documents, which have been relied upon. In paragraph No.22 made an observation that, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has taken possession of the aforesaid shop premises, which are all mentioned in the schedule through the Court by filing execution petitions and further contends that on 15.02.2016, the plaintiff had come near the suit schedule properties for removal of debris, but the defendants and their henchmen have manhandled the partner of the plaintiff firm and also the contractor and a complaint was also lodged. The plaintiff has not placed any piece of documents in this regard. The plaintiff also not placed any documents to show that he is having any possessory right over the suit schedule property as well as revenue documents with respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff in his plaint has stated that the plaintiff's firm is the owner of the suit schedule properties and purchased the same under three registered sale deed dated 16.03.1984. Though he has produced the certified copy of those sale deeds and got marked as Exs.P.1 to 3, but not produced the originals and also not stated anything in his plaint why he has not produced the original sale deeds and also failed to show the reason. The plaintiff has not placed any materials to substantiate his contention with respect of his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and also not assigned the reason for non- production of original documents. The Trial Court also taken note of Exs.P.5 to 8 tax paid receipts pertaining to the year 2000. The suit is filed in the year 2016, but tax paid receipts, which are produced are of the year 2000. The plaintiff has not placed any khatha extract and tax paid receipt of the year 2016. The Trial Court also taken note of Exs.P.5 to 8 tax paid receipts pertaining to the year 2000. The suit is filed in the year 2016, but tax paid receipts, which are produced are of the year 2000. The plaintiff has not placed any khatha extract and tax paid receipt of the year 2016. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 in the cross-examination in paragraph No.24 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not produced the documents as on the date of filing of the suit. Except the tax paid receipts of the year 2000, nothing is placed on record and hence, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has shown the cause of action on 13.02.2016, but on perusal of paragraph No.15 of the plaint, as per his own averment, on the said date, the plaintiff had demolished the schedule property. But there is no narration regarding the interference by the defendants as on that date as alleged. Hence, answered point No.1 in the negative. With regard to the interference is concerned, answered the same in the negative i.e., issue Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.123/2024. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds, which have been urged in the appeal, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court has committed error in dismissing the suit and not considering the contention of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse, erroneous, arbitrary, capricious and opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case and calls for interference by this Court? 3. To what order or decree? 8. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, taken note of the documents, which have been relied upon by the appellant, particularly Exs.P.1 to 3 and also taken note of that not relied upon any other documents. The First Appellate Court also considered the evidence of D.W.1 and in paragraph No.39 taken note of that in Crime No.35/2019, ‘B’ report was filed and comes to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the Court has to consider only the material available on record. The First Appellate Court also considered the evidence of D.W.1 and in paragraph No.39 taken note of that in Crime No.35/2019, ‘B’ report was filed and comes to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the Court has to consider only the material available on record. Even there is an admission on the part of D.W.1 and weakness of the defendants cannot be taken into consideration and burden is on the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule properties. Without taking possession of the suit schedule properties by due process of law, the plaintiff has stated that they themselves demolished some portion of the building in the suit schedule property, which clearly establishes the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. The First Appellate Court also taken note of that there are no documents available on record to show that the plaintiff is in lawful possession as on the date of filing of the suit and nothing is placed on record, except the tax paid receipts of the year 2000 and even khatha certificate is also not produced and hence, dismissed the appeal. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in dismissing the suit and confirming the same. The learned counsel would contend that the Courts below failed to read the reported judgment in the public domain in O.S.No.299/2016 and R.F.A.No.185/2013 and failed to perform its function and erred in not reading the judgment. The learned counsel would contend that the First Appellate Court failed to perform as per Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to read and answer both the question of law and also the question of fact. Hence, the judgment and decree of Trial Court is erroneous and the First Appellate Court also committed an error in confirming the same. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the material on record, particularly the reasoning of the Trial Court, the Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1. Though P.W.1 relies upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 3 and also applied for joint khata, the khata document is not produced before the Court. Specific admission was given that no difficulty to produce the khata document before the Court. Though P.W.1 relies upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to 3 and also applied for joint khata, the khata document is not produced before the Court. Specific admission was given that no difficulty to produce the khata document before the Court. He categorically admits that he cannot say how his vendor got the property and he is not aware of the same and each and every admission on part of him is that he is not having any information and also with regard to the measurement is concerned also i.e., 69 x 83 feet, he is not having any first hand information, except stating that suit schedule property is purchased by Bhavani Enterprises. The Trial Court even considered the evidence of D.W.1 and he admits that he has not produced any document in respect of the suit schedule property is concerned and also given admission in respect of O.S.No.204/2008. The Trial Court also taken note of with regard to non-production of documents by the plaintiff i.e., khata and tax paid receipts as on the date of filing of the suit i.e., O.S.No.299/2016. The tax paid receipts, which have been produced are of the year 2000 and not 2016 and khata extract of the year 2016 are also not placed on record. The Trial Court considering the material on record, not accepted the case of the plaintiff. 11. The First Appellate Court also having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record observed that, it is settled law that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff has to establish the possession. Except producing documents Exs.P.1 to 3, khata certificate is not produced and even tax paid receipts are also not produced to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and hence, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that possession has not been established as on the date of filing of the suit. This Court already pointed out that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff has to establish the possession to grant the relief of permanent injunction and in the absence of any material on record, I do not find any error on the part of both the Courts in coming to the conclusion that possession has not been established as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I do not find any reasons to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.