JUDGMENT : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. Appellant-plaintiff is before this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in OS No.188/2008 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC at Koppal (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of ownership and possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed which is confirmed by the judgement and order dated 30.11.2011 passed in RA No.38/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Koppal (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. Case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing old No.40 and new No.257 measuring 28 ft. x 60 ft., within the boundaries described at paragraph No.2 of the plaint. That the said property is the ancestral property which has been in possession and enjoyment of his ancestors and now with the plaintiff. At paragraph No.5 of the plaint it is averred that the then Government of Hyderabad had granted another property bearing Nuzul No.169 in favour of the family of the plaintiff in the year 1938 A.D., corresponding to 1345 Fasli. The name of the ancestors of the plaintiff was accordingly entered in the revenue records. Subsequently, name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records from the year 1967- 68 by virtue of inheritance. The said property stands in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa. That, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 having no share, right, title or interest over the property, were attempting to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, which constrained the plaintiff to file the above suit seeking reliefs as noted above. 3. Defendants appeared through their counsel.Defendant No.4 filed written statement which has been adopted by defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6. Defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff being owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the schedule property was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in favour of the ancestors of plaintiff or that the property in No.169 was granted to the family of the plaintiff. Defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff being owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also denied that the schedule property was granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in favour of the ancestors of plaintiff or that the property in No.169 was granted to the family of the plaintiff. It is specifically contended that, the property comprised in Nuzul No.169 situated at Ginigera totally measuring 220 square yards within the boundaries shown at paragraph No.7 of the written statement, belongs to them and the plaintiff has no right, share, title in the same. The name of Durga @ Durgappa shown in the Nuzul Extract pertaining to property No.169 is the grandfather of the defendants. Upon his demise, defendants and their legal representatives have been in possession of property.Contending so, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 5. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P18. On behalf of defendants, three witnesses were examined namely Mariyappa as DW1, Fakeerswamy as DW2 and Guruswamy as DW3 and exhibited 05 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D5. 6. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal in RA No.38/2011. The First Appellate Court on considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal framed the following points for its considering: “1. Whether the trial court is correct in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence? 2. Whether the judgment of the trial court is perverse, capricious and needs interference of this Court? 3. What order?” 7. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 8. Sri. 3. What order?” 7. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 8. Sri. Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and taking this Court through the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the exhibits produced by the parties vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have grossly erred in rejecting the suit of the plaintiff on the premise of the plaintiff not being able to produce the document of title which is contrary to settle position of law. In that, he insists that long standing revenue entries can be the basis for granting the relief of declaration of title. He submits as such, Ex.P2 is the revenue entry standing in the name of Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara is the oldest document reflecting his name in respect of property bearing Nuzul No.169. Referring to document at Ex.P.16 which is a genealogy, he submits that the same reflects the name of said Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara who is the ancestor of the plaintiff. He further referring to Ex.P3 to P9 submits that, the said revenue entries consistently indicate the name of the plaintiff. Thus he submits that, since the name of the ancestor of the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff himself is being reflected consistently, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have decreed the suit as sought for. 8.1. It is his further submission that, though the private defendants have set-up a claim over the suit property they have not produced any acceptable evidence to substantiate their claim and in the circumstances preponderance of probabilities ought to have been held in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, non-appreciation of material evidence and wrong application of provision of law by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has led to perversity in the judgement and decree passed giving raise to substantial question of law. 8.2. He relies upon the judgment of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma Venkatram and Another Vs. Thus, non-appreciation of material evidence and wrong application of provision of law by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has led to perversity in the judgement and decree passed giving raise to substantial question of law. 8.2. He relies upon the judgment of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma Venkatram and Another Vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and Another , [ILR 2021 KAR 3559] and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri. Bhimeshwara Swami Vary Temple Vs. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and Others , [ AIR 1973 SC 1299 ] 9. Per contra, Smt. Nandini B. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for private defendants justifying the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court submits that, the plaintiff who has sought for relief of declaration of his title ought to have adduced cogent evidence instead of depending upon the weakness of the defendants. She further submits that, the dispute arose when the defendants had made an application for mutation of their names in respect of property bearing Nuzul No.169. 9.1. Referring to the document at Ex.D5, the learned counsel pointed out that, the said document is the record of events that transpired upon the application filed by the defendants. In that, the plaintiff had indicated no objection to register the name of the defendants in respect of land bearing Nuzul No.169 measuring 220 square yards subject to condition of they being permitted to utilise the portion of the said property for the ingress or egress. She submits that, the said document has neither been contested nor denied by the plaintiff. As such, the suit so filed by the plaintiff is an after thought only to grab the property belonging to the defendants. 9.2. She further submits that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as the plaintiff had not established his right, title, interest and possession over the possession of the property. Since, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given concurrent finding of facts, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. At the outset relevant to note the paragraph Nos.2 and 5 of the plaint which are as under: 12. Since, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have given concurrent finding of facts, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. At the outset relevant to note the paragraph Nos.2 and 5 of the plaint which are as under: 12. Thus, perusal of pleadings in the aforesaid paragraphs would indicate that, the plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule property as described at paragraph No.2 of the plaint, namely, property bearing old No.40 new No.257 measuring 28 ft. x 60 ft., bounded on the east by : road, west by : property bearing No.239 or 258, north by : Gawathana property and south by : road. Though at para No.5 of the plaint, plaintiff has claimed that the suit schedule property was granted by the then Nizam Hyderabad to the forefathers of the plaintiff in the year 1938, in the same paragraph the plaintiff has claimed that at the same time the Nizam had granted another property being open space bearing Nuzul No.169 and that the said property consist of a house and open space standing in the name of the plaintiff. 13. Clearly even according to the plaintiff, there are two different properties. However, as rightly taken note by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court during trial, the plaintiff made an attempt to establish the link between two properties referring to the entries made in Ex.P2 and the entries made in Ex.P3 to P9. Ex.P2 refers to the property bearing Nuzul extract No.169, standing in the name of one Durga S/o. Kalakappa Madara. Whereas, Ex.P3 to P9 reflect the name of the plaintiff in respect of property old No.40 new No.257. 14. It is the case of the plaintiff as stated above that, both the properties were granted by the then Government of Hyderabad in the year 1938. If the suit property as described at para No.2 of the plaint according to the plaintiff is different from the property referred to at para No.5, there is no need for the plaintiff to contend that both the properties are one and the same. Having contended so, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have established the link between these two properties by leading cogent and acceptable evidence. Having contended so, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have established the link between these two properties by leading cogent and acceptable evidence. This not having been proved by the plaintiff, as rightly taken note by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit. 15. Necessary also to note that, the defendants are not making any claim in respect of suit property namely the property described at para No.2 of the plaint as extracted herein above. Defendants on the other hand are contending that, the property bearing Nuzul No.169 which is referred to at para No.5 of the plaint, belonged to their forefathers, the description of which is given by the defendants at para No.7 of the written statement. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff under the guise of seeking relief in respect of suit property bearing old No.40 and new No.257, is trying to claim the property bearing Nuzul No.169 which is in possession of the defendants. 16. Though as noted above, the plaintiff sought declaration in respect of property described in para No.2 of the plaint, later seem to have changed his version to contend that both the properties described at para No.2 and 5 of the plaint are one and the same. This runs contrary to the very own pleading of the plaintiff as extracted herein above. The reliance placed by the plaintiff on Ex.P.2 which pertains to property bearing Nuzul No.169 to contend that the said property is renumbered as property No.257 as reflected in document at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.9, in the light of the very pleading in the plaint cannot be countenanced. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having taken note of this aspect of the matter have rightly come to the conclusion of the plaintiff not establishing his right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. 17. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff on the judgments in the case of Jayamma (supra) and Sri. Bhimeshwara (supra)are of no avail inasmuch as, the facts involved in both the cases are different and distinguishable. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 18. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.