JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed in R.A.No.15/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction and for handing over vacant possession of the suit property by removing the hut, that is illegally created on the schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is ancestral property, and the same was acquired by her through her father, Puttappagowda, who had no male issues, and she has been in possession of the suit property. One Gutyamma was the wife of defendant No.1, and her father’s name was Badegondra Sainya. The said Badegondra Sanya has four daughters and no sons. They are defendant No.2 i.e., Bammi, Bangaramma, the mother of defendant No.3, defendant No.4- Kannamma and defendant No.1’s wife, Gutyamma. Gutyamma passed away, and defendant No.5 is her son, who he is her successor. After the demise of Gutyamma, Defendant No.1 married a second wife. Defendant No.3’s mother, Bangaramma, died, and defendant No.3 is her successor. After the demise of Badegondra Sanya, defendants, Nos.2 to 5, became the successors and the joint owners of the estate of their father. The property bearing Assessment No.16 situated at Khaneshumari No.1 of Amblikoppa village, belongs to the said Badegondra Sanya for which the Mandal Panchayat had entered the name of Badegondra Sanya in its khata. The suit schedule property bearing khaneshumari No.13, which measures approximately 1 acre and 24 guntas, belongs to the plaintiff as it is an ancestral property. Both these properties are distinct, and are located in different places. 3.1. During May 1994, the defendants illegally entered the eastern portion of the schedule property and put up a thatched hut measuring 17 X 19 ft. Hence, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff to demolish the illegal construction of the hut. Both these properties are distinct, and are located in different places. 3.1. During May 1994, the defendants illegally entered the eastern portion of the schedule property and put up a thatched hut measuring 17 X 19 ft. Hence, a police complaint was lodged by the plaintiff to demolish the illegal construction of the hut. To overcome the effect of police actions, defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.229/1994, by incorrectly showing the suit schedule property as Assessment No.16, by filing a false affidavit to that effect, and had obtained an exparte temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff herein, filed a written statement in the said suit. The suit was dismissed on 24.08.1996. After the disposal of the said suit, the defendants, in spite of repeated requests did not turn ups and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property by removing the hut. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file this instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.2. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit property, and the area of the property measures 1 acre 24 guntas. The name of defendant No.1 appears in the demand register, and he has paid the revenue for the property. The suit schedule property consists of a residential house and a barn belonging to defendant No.1. The remaining portion is used for growing krushi crops, and pineapple crops. To the east of the said property Erappa’s land is situated, to the west kallappa’s backward, to the north: Parasappa’s backyard, to the south is Khaneshmari No.13 property. The plaintiff harassed defendant No.1 in 1994, regarding the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.229/1994, and injunction was granted against the plaintiff’s sister. Defendant No.1 withdrew the said suit on an understanding that the plaintiff would not disturb defendant No.1. The plaintiff was aware of the said facts, and filed a false suit to gain illegal benefit. 3.3. It is contended that defendant No.1 married Gutyamma, i.e, the daughter of Badegondara Sanya, and defendant No.5 is his son. The relationship between the defendant Nos.2 to 5 is correct as stated in the plaint. The plaintiff was aware of the said facts, and filed a false suit to gain illegal benefit. 3.3. It is contended that defendant No.1 married Gutyamma, i.e, the daughter of Badegondara Sanya, and defendant No.5 is his son. The relationship between the defendant Nos.2 to 5 is correct as stated in the plaint. It is denied that the plaintiff is an owner of the suit schedule property, and contended that, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the plaint. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property belongs to her? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have encroached eastern portion of the suit property in the year 1994 and have put up a hut in the portion demarcated as ‘E’ ‘F’ ‘G’ ‘H’ in the plaint sketch without any right? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the encroached portion by relief of mandatory injunction? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 5) What decree or order? 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to 11. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, and marked 14 documents as Exs.D1 to D14. The Court Commissioner was examined as CW.1, and marked 4 documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 29.11.2011. 3.6. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.160/1998, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15/2012. 3.7. The first Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:- 3.8. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both the sides and on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative, point No.5 in the affirmative, and point No.6 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated 13.02.2013. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both the sides and on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative, point No.5 in the affirmative, and point No.6 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed, vide judgment dated 13.02.2013. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.160/1998 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgment in R.A.No.15/2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard Sri. H.S.Sureshappa Gowda, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and Sri. Venu Gopal M.S., learned counsel for defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the first Appellate Court has committed an illegality in disbelieving the evidence of PW.2, who is the Panchayath secretary, who knows the factual position of the spot of the suit schedule property, and also committed an error in ignoring the documentary evidence of the suit schedule property, which stands in the name of the plaintiff’s father, and supported by the sketch produced by the Commissioner, who was appointed at the instance of defendant No.1. He submits that the first Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.1 supported the impugned judgment, and he submits that the first Appellate Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record, and rightly passed the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court, vide order dated 28.01.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law. “Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which was for mandatory injunction to clear the unauthorised construction put up by the defendants, they have no right, title and interest therein?” 8. Reg. Substantial question of law The plaintiff, to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove her case, she produced the documents Exs.P1 to P11. From the perusal of Exs.P1 to 4, i.e., Demand Register, it does not prove the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Reg. Substantial question of law The plaintiff, to prove her case, examined herself as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and to prove her case, she produced the documents Exs.P1 to P11. From the perusal of Exs.P1 to 4, i.e., Demand Register, it does not prove the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Ex.P4 is the demand register regarding property at khaneshumari No.13, and the said property is standing in the name of Magalli kanna. The remaining copies of the demand registers at Exs.P5 to 10 are not related to khaneshumari No.13. The said documents are related to the other properties and not regarding khaneshumari No.13. Ex.P1 is the map. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the plaint filed by defendant No.1 against plaintiff’s sister in O.S.No.229/1994 and Ex.P11 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.229/1994. 9. From the perusal of the entire records, the plaintiff has not produced any records before the Court regarding the boundaries and extent of the suit schedule property. The measurement shown in the plaint is based on self-declared measurement by the plaintiff, and her witness. Merely, based on the oral evidence of the plaintiff and her witness, this Court cannot conclude that the boundaries of the suit property does not relate to plot No.16, belonging to the defendant. PW.2, who is the Secretary in Bennur Gram panchayath, has deposed that he issued a copy of the demand register for 1994-95 regarding khaneshumari No.16, which is in the name of defendant No.1, property No.14 is in the name of Kariyappa and property No.17 is in the name of Mahadevappa. He has deposed that there is no house at property No.16. He has also stated that he inspected the site, while collecting the revenue. 10. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he gave an evasive reply regarding the number to the properties given based on the sequence of properties. He has stated that he has given the number to properties based on the authority he received, but he does not know whether he has visited the place, and inspected it. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant does not own property bearing Khaneshumari No.16 as there is a serious dispute regarding the identity of the suit property, and PW.2 has not deposed regarding Khaneshumari No.13. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant does not own property bearing Khaneshumari No.16 as there is a serious dispute regarding the identity of the suit property, and PW.2 has not deposed regarding Khaneshumari No.13. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. He has produced the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D14. During the pendency of the suit, a Court commissioner was appointed, who inspected the suit schedule property, and submitted a report. A Court commissioner was examined as CW.1. 11. The plaintiff has not made any claim regarding khaneshumari No.13. The claim of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 encroached on 'EFGH' portion of khaneshumari No.13, belonging to the plaintiff, and built a hut, cannot be accepted as the defendants have not made any encroachment on the property claimed by the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court, considering the entire material on record, has rightly recorded its finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the identity, and the ownership of the suit property, and further, the plaintiff has not claimed the relief of possession. Hence, the suit for mere declaration, without seeking a consequential relief of possession, is not maintainable, as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. 12. The first Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. The plaintiff has also failed to prove that the defendants has erected unauthorised construction, and have no right, title or interest therein. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question in the affirmative. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013, passed in R.A.No.15/2012 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sorab, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the disposal of this appeal, pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of.