JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.165/3 totally measuring 16 acres 36 guntas situated at Kattalagere Village, Basavapattana Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, originally belongs to one Bheemappa and he was the owner, kathedar in possession and enjoyment of the said land. During his lifetime, he had gifted an extent of 8 acres 18 guntas of the northern side of Sy.No.165/3 of land in favour of his daughter Smt. Hanumavva for the welfare of her children and the said gift deed is registered vide gift deed dated 02.08.1943. Since then, she became the owner of the said extent of land and remaining extent in the southern side measuring 8 acres 29 guntas was retained by the grandfather of the plaintiff. Subsequent to the death of Bheemappa, the father of the plaintiff succeeded to the said property and the revenue entries were also changed into the name of the father of the plaintiff under IH proceedings. Subsequently, after the death of the plaintiff’s father/Dodda Hanumanthappa, the revenue entries changed into the name of the plaintiff under IH proceeding vide IHC No.7/1980-81. The plaintiff is enjoying the suit property as an absolute owner, kathedar and successor in possession which is described in the plaint schedule. 3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that out of the land which was gifted to Hanumavva to an extent of 8 acres 18 guntas, 13 guntas was acquired for the formation of IT Road and channel 3 rd zone distributor of Malebennuru Branch Channel vide Mysuru gazette dated 30.05.1968 by the Government of Karnataka. Gurusiddappa and Kariyappa have received the compensation amount from the Special Land acquisition Officer, Shivamogga on 13.02.1969. Gurusiddappa and Kariyappa have received the compensation amount from the Special Land acquisition Officer, Shivamogga on 13.02.1969. The said extent which was acquired for the IT Road and channel was not reduced by the revenue authorities in the revenue records and the same has been continued in the RTC’s of the said survey number which was actually remains only to an extent of 8 acres 5 guntas after acquisition of 13 guntas. Subsequent to that, defendant Nos.5 to 7 had entered into the partition deed on 12.06.2001 and in the said partition in Sy.No.165/3B measuring 20 guntas was allotted to the share of Kariyappa/defendant No.5 and extent of 3 acres 35 guntas was allotted to the share of Basavarajappa and Manjunatha jointly and as per the registered partition deed, katha was accepted into their names in the revenue records. 4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the brother of defendant Nos.5 to 7 was also mentioned in the revenue records, 4 acres 15 guntas. Thereby, totally 8 acres 30 guntas appeared in the revenue records and thereby an extent of 25 guntas is and was not in possession with defendant Nos.5 to 7 and an alleged partition deed created by them to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.165/3B on the revenue records. The defendant No.5 made representation to defendant Nos.3 and 4 for hudbasth survey of 20 guntas appeared in Sy.No.165/3B. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 made illegal attempts to fix the hudbasth in the land of defendant Nos.5 to 7 on which they made representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division in R.A.No.364/2017-18. The said Assistant Commissioner ordered directing the Tahsildar/defendant No.3 to make an enquiry about 13 guntas which was acquired and subsequently after enquiry make a suitable order in that connection on 27.10.2017. Even after the direction issued by the higher authority to the Tahsildar, Channagiri/defendant No.3 not initiated any proceedings and also considered the matter. The defendant No.4 surprisingly issued the notice to the plaintiff intimating the plaintiff to be present before the spot on 22.11.2017. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 without asserting and conducting enquiry straight away taken steps to measure the land of the plaintiff and intimated to produce the documents. The plaintiff made representation to defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding the actual fact and possession at this spot. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 without asserting and conducting enquiry straight away taken steps to measure the land of the plaintiff and intimated to produce the documents. The plaintiff made representation to defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding the actual fact and possession at this spot. But defendant Nos.3 and 4 without considering the plaintiff’s records made illegal attempts to fix the hudbasth boundaries. 5. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 is acting on the say of defendant Nos.5 to 7. The defendant No.3 colluding with defendant No.4 performed the hudbasth sketch, by violating the directions of higher authorities. The plaintiff without any alternative approached the Court for proper and appropriate remedy. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 and their brothers divided north- south and in between the land of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 7 there exists kaluve width of 2 to 3 feet and on the northern side of defendant Nos.5 to 7 there was a road which was acquired by the Bhadra Channel Malebennur 3 rd distributor. The defendant Nos.5 to 7 have no right over the plaintiff’s land after the said kaluve on the southern side and by suppressing the acquired land the defendants wanted to lay in the land of the plaintiff by taking survey hudbasth illegally. 6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that Sy.No.165/3 measuring 16 acres 36 guntas is wrong. The said Sy.No.165/3 totally measures 17 acres 19 guntas within 23 guntas of kharab and net cultivable area was 16 acres 36 guntas. This kharab was brought under cultivation and as such that total extent of the property was 17 acres 19 guntas. However, defendant Nos.5 to 7 admitted the gift deed made by Bheemappa in favour of his daughter by name Hanumavva measuring 8 acres 18 guntas, but denied that Bheemappa intended to gift the northern half portion in Sy.No.165/3 total extent measuring 17 acres 19 guntas and in the gift deed only cultivable area of 16 acres 36 guntas was mentioned. But the total extent of half portion was put in possession of donee/Smt. Hanumavva i.e., 8 acres 30 guntas and remaining 8 acres 29 guntas remained with doner/Bheemappa. But the total extent of half portion was put in possession of donee/Smt. Hanumavva i.e., 8 acres 30 guntas and remaining 8 acres 29 guntas remained with doner/Bheemappa. Since the date of gift deed, the total extent of property has been gifted as 8 acres 30 guntas to Hanumavva and the same has been continued in the names of grandsons of Hanumavva i.e., defendant Nos.5 to 7 and remaining extent of 8 acres 29 guntas continued in the name of the plaintiff which includes 11 guntas of kharab. Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit schedule property is false as he had not stated regarding kharab area of 11 guntas and hence the very approach made by the plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction is erroneous. They admitted the execution of registered partition deed as pleaded by the plaintiff and the hissa allotted to the parties in the said partition deed with its extent but the defendant denies that an extent of 25 guntas is not in possession of defendant Nos.5 to 7. The defendants further denies the creation of revenue records in the name of the defendant No.5 to an extent of 20 guntas of Sy.No.165/3B without possession. 7. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues with regard to establishing the possession of the plaintiff and interference by the defendants and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The Trial Court considered the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendants and also the documents which have been placed on record, assessed the evidence and also taken note of the answers elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 that there was a gift deed in respect of Sy.No.165 and the total area is 16 acres 36 guntas. The Trial Court in paragraph No.27 extracted the admission of P.W.1, particularly in respect of the contents of Ex.D.3. P.W.1 admitted total extent of 8 acres 18 guntas and also not produced the partition deed. In paragraph No.29 extracted the admission of P.W.1 having conducted the survey and in paragraph No.30 discussed regarding admission that he has not given any application to survey the land and dispute between himself and the defendants is in respect of boundary. P.W.1 admitted total extent of 8 acres 18 guntas and also not produced the partition deed. In paragraph No.29 extracted the admission of P.W.1 having conducted the survey and in paragraph No.30 discussed regarding admission that he has not given any application to survey the land and dispute between himself and the defendants is in respect of boundary. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of P.W.1, comes to the conclusion that when the plaintiff has failed to produce the document to establish the exact location of the schedule property, merely relying upon Ex.D.3/Pakkabook entries and Ex.P.9/RTC entries, it cannot be presumed that the schedule property could be identified. It is held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff invariably has to prove the exact location of the schedule property with its boundaries. Unless the same is proved, the question of granting injunction does not arise and answered point No.1 in the negative and regarding interference answered point No.2 also in the negative and comes to the conclusion that unless the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property with its exact identification and boundary, not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction and dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed and in the appeal, the First Appellate Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and in paragraph No.24 discussed with regard to the gift deed i.e., Ex.P.1 gifting away 8 acres 18 guntas of land at northern half extent of Sy.No.165/3 of Kattalagere Village. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the revenue records were mutated instead of 8 acres 18 guntas in respect of northern portion of Sy.No.165/3 of Kattalagere Village, but mutated to an extent of 8 acres 30 guntas. All along, the plaint is silent about the discrepancies carried out by the revenue officials since from 1943. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the revenue records were mutated instead of 8 acres 18 guntas in respect of northern portion of Sy.No.165/3 of Kattalagere Village, but mutated to an extent of 8 acres 30 guntas. All along, the plaint is silent about the discrepancies carried out by the revenue officials since from 1943. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the contention of the defendants that extent of share fell to the family members of defendant Nos.5 to 7 by way of registered partition deed held as per Ex.P.10, whereby the defendants have clearly pleaded that 20 guntas land being allotted to the share of defendant No.5, 3 acre 35 guntas land being fallen to the joint share of Basavarajappa and Manjunath and Ganeshappa was allotted to an extent of 4 acres 15 guntas. Thereafter, Basavarajappa and Manjunath sold 35 guntas of land in favour of Ganeshappa as per Ex.D.5 and whereby, Ganeshappa is in possession of 4 acres 15 guntas + 35 guntas i.e., in total 5 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.165/3B. The remaining extent of 3 acres land is in possession of the purchaser i.e., Hanumavva. 20 guntas land allotted to the share of Kariyappa is intact with possession of Kariyappa only and the revenue records is available in the name of defendant No.5 in respect of 20 guntas land as per Ex.D.13. The Trial Court while considering the material on record, made an observation that the plaintiff’s case is also silent as to how 8 acres 30 guntas of land being mutated even though Bheemappa gifted away only 8 acres 18 guntas in favour of Smt. Hanumavva as per Ex.P.1 gift deed. Having taken note of the recitals made in Ex.D.1, the First Appellate Court discussed in detail to the extent of land which was available in paragraph No.25. 9. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.26 observed that now, the question is whether the plaintiff proved the northern side boundary of the plaint schedule property is correct or not. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not placed any material before the Court to fortify the boundary details of the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 admitted that in between the suit schedule property and Kaluve, Ex.D.13 property i.e., 20 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.5 is situated, which supports the defence of defendant Nos.5 to 7. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not placed any material before the Court to fortify the boundary details of the plaint schedule property. P.W.1 admitted that in between the suit schedule property and Kaluve, Ex.D.13 property i.e., 20 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.5 is situated, which supports the defence of defendant Nos.5 to 7. P.W.1 further admitted that when survey was conducted by the survey officials by issuing notice to that effect as per Ex.P.8, the surveyor found that in between the suit schedule property and kaluve, the property of defendant No.5 i.e., Ex.D.13 is situated. Having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the admission on the part of P.W.1, in paragraph No.28 an observation is made that when the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the defendants seriously disputed the boundary details so furnished by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, more particularly in respect of northern side and admission was elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 to that effect and the same is also considered. 10. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court considered the material available on record and the discrepancies found and also the extent which revenue entries are got entered in the name of the plaintiff, though gift deed is to the lesser extent. When the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff ought to have described the exact schedule and also the possession and the possession has not been proved and admissions are elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and the Trial Court extracted the same in paragraph Nos.25 to 30. The First Appellate Court in detail discussed the same in paragraph Nos.25 to 29 and comes to the definite conclusion that the boundaries do not tally and also not proved the exact boundary for which the permanent injunction is sought. When such materials are considered, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in appreciating the same and the question of entertaining the second appeal does not arise unless substantial question of law is made out by the appellant. Though it is contended that both the orders suffer from appreciation of evidence by perversity, no such substantial question of law is made out to admit the second appeal even on perversity in findings. Though it is contended that both the orders suffer from appreciation of evidence by perversity, no such substantial question of law is made out to admit the second appeal even on perversity in findings. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.