JUDGMENT : (ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013, passed in R.A.No.109/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur. 2. For convenience, 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 against the defendants for declaration that she is the absolute holder of TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703 and for the declaration that the alleged transfer of the said certificate from the name of plaintiff to the name of defendant No.1 by defendant Nos.2 to 4 is null and void, and not binding upon the plaintiff and mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.2 to 4 to reissue and renew TBGR certificate and license in the name of the plaintiff. 3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that she owns several properties in Abbur and Heggandur villages. In 2001, the plaintiff sold one of the landed properties in favour of the defendant No.1’s husband under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001, situated at Abbur village, measuring 20 guntas in Sy.No.94/6. Later, the revenue records were regarding the suit land transferred in his name. The plaintiff retained several landed properties, where she used to grow tobacco, and used to auction the same in defendant No.2’s platform through a TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703. The plaintiff, for renewal of her grower's registration certificate for the year 2004- 05, approached defendant No.2 and requested renewal of the TBGR certificate and license. The plaintiff came to know that her TBGR certificate and license had been transferred in the name of defendant No.1 by defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 refused to renew them in the name of the plaintiff by assigning reasons. It is contended that the plaintiff enquired into the alleged transfer of the said certificate and license in the name of defendant No.1 and came to know that the said transfer was made, based on the sale deed dated 15.06.2001. It is contended that the plaintiff never sold the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1’s husband. It is contended that the plaintiff enquired into the alleged transfer of the said certificate and license in the name of defendant No.1 and came to know that the said transfer was made, based on the sale deed dated 15.06.2001. It is contended that the plaintiff never sold the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1’s husband. The plaintiff was kept in the dark, and she knew nothing about the collusion of defendants Nos.2 to 4 with defendant No.1 in obtaining the TBGR certificate and license transfered in the name of defendant No.1. It is contended that the plaintiff is a poor widow with no support from anyone. 3.2. The plaintiff questioned defendant No.2 regarding the transfer of the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1, but all efforts turned futile, and defendant No.2 did not yield to any of the say of the plaintiff. The transfer of the TBGR certificate and license by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, perverse, and capricious. It is contended that the plaintiff filed an application under Section 80(2) of the CPC seeking permission from the Court to file a suit without issuing a notice under Section 80 of the CPC. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 3.3. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff was an unauthorised grower, and as per the policy, the plaintiff was issued a temporary sale permit (TSP) vide No.2091703 by the Auction Superintendent, APF No.4, Kaggundi in 1997. Subsequently, a separate TSP No.468703 was allotted in the place of TSP No.2091703 in 1999, for administration purpose. Platform No.61 of Kamalapur from defendant No.2 was established during 2003-04. It is contended that the plaintiff did not sell any Tobacco during the years 1999-2000 to 2001- 2002. On 11.01.2003, Sri. Kalegowda S/o Boregowda, along with his wife, approached the concerned authorities with an application enclosing a Xerox copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001, executed by Smt. Nagamma w/o late Kempegowda. Based on the documents produced said TSP No.4068703 was transferred in the name of defendant No.1, and as per the policy of the Tobacco board, unauthorized barns have been regularized during 2004-05, and TBGR No.4/68/039 was given to defendant No.1 charging a penalty of Rs.4,000/- in place of TSP 4/68/703. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.2 and 4. 3.4. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.2 and 4. 3.4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant No.1 and her husband, one Kempegowda, had constructed Tobacco barren in land bearing Sy.No.94/6 of Abbur village. After purchasing the said land from the plaintiff, defendant No.1 submitted an application to the Tobacco Board authority. After following the due procedure, the Tobacco Board Authority issued a license bearing TBGR No.4068703 in the name of defendant No.1. Since from the date of license i.e., 2001, defendant No.1 is regularly growing Tobacco. After the lapse of 5 years, the plaintiff has come up with this suit, challenging the license and TBGR No.4068703 granted in favour of defendant No.1. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed against defendant No.1. 3.5. Subsequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint and inserted para Nos.3 and 4(a) in the plaint. Defendant No.1 filed an additional written statement denying the contents of para Nos.3 and 4(a) of the amended plaint and prays to dismiss the suit. 3.6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves declaring that she is the absolute holder of TBGR certificate No.2091703? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves declaring the TBGR No.2091703 from his name to the 1 st defendant by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 is null, void, illegal and not binding on her? 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for? 5) What order or decree? 3.7. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 and 10. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 and marked 28 documents as Exs.D1 to D28. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The plaintiff’s suit was decreed vide judgment dated 15.09.2008. 3.8. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.110/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.109/2008 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur. The plaintiff’s suit was decreed vide judgment dated 15.09.2008. 3.8. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.110/2004, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.109/2008 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute holder of TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703? 2) If so, whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant has transferred the said certificate to the name of the 1 st defendant? 3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court requires to be interfered with? 4) What order? 3.9. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative, point No.2 does not survive for consideration, point No.3 in the affirmative, and point No.4 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.110/2004 was set aside. Consequently, the plaintiff’s was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.03.2013. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. C.R.Gopalasway, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned counsel for defendant No.1. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has not transferred the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has not acquired any right over TBGR. He submits that defendant No.1, behind the back of the plaintiff, obtained the TBGR certificate and license. The said TBGR certificate and license issued in favour of defendant No.1, is illegal, perverse and capricious. He submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court, without considering the entire evidence on record, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff filed the suit, claiming the relief of declaration that the transfer of the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void. The plaintiff has not produced the relevant documents to prove his claim. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff filed the suit, claiming the relief of declaration that the transfer of the TBGR certificate in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void. The plaintiff has not produced the relevant documents to prove his claim. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and he also submits that the said TBGR certificate and license were granted in 2001, and the suit was filed in 2004, i.e., after the lapse of 3 years from the issue of TBGR certificate and license. He also submits that the plaintiff has not produced any records to demonstrate that the license was issued in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that the first Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, was justified in passing the impugned judgment. He submits that judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court, on 22.02.2017, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law : i) Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in allowing R.A.No.109/2008 preferred by defendant No.1 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.110/2004 on the ground that in view of the sale of 20 guntas in the suit Sy.No.94/6 by the plaintiff in favour of husband of the first defendant, the license held by the plaintiff also deemed to have been transferred to respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 4 were justified in transferring Tobacco license standing in the name of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendant No.1? 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. RE G . S UBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW N O .1 The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW.1. She has deposed that she is the absolute owner of several properties at Abbur and Heggandur villages. During 2001, she sold the property bearing Sy.No.94/6 measuring 20 guntas in Abbur village in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001. The name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records based on the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001. During 2001, she sold the property bearing Sy.No.94/6 measuring 20 guntas in Abbur village in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001. The name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records based on the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001. The plaintiff regained other landed properties where she used to grow tobacco and auction it on defendant No.2’s platform by virtue of her TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703. After the said transaction, the plaintiff was informed the same to defendant No.2 in writing, where she clearly disclosed not to transfer the TBGR license in favour of anybody, including the husband of defendant No.1. 10. She has further deposed that the plaintiff has applied for renewal of her TBGR for 2004-05. Defendant No.2 refused to renew the TBGR license on the grounds that the said license was transferred in the name of defendant No.1. After verification, she came to know that defendant No.1 played a fraud on the plaintiff and obtained TBGR certificate and license from defendant No.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, has produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the sale note about the name of the grower in TBGR No.2091703. The name of the plaintiff is mentioned, and the number is mentioned as 2091703. 11. From the perusal of Ex.P1, it is in a printed form, and it does not bear the signature of any authorized person. Ex.P2 is the acknowledgement issued by the Auction Superintendent, Tobacco Board, Kamalapura, which discloses that he has received an application from one Smt. Nagamma, dated 26.10.2004, and a reply will be given after verifying the office records, Ex.P3 is the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the husband of defendant No.1. Exs.P4 and 5 are the tax receipts, Ex.P6 is the boundary certificate which discloses that khata No.114/113 in Sy.No.94/6, there exists a barn measuring 13X13 ft, Ex.P7 is the boundary certificate issued by the Secretary, Neralakuppe village, Hunsur taluq, stating that there exists barn measuring 13 X 13 ft, in khata No.133/185, Ex.P8 is the RTC extract of the suit land, which stands in the name of the husband of defendant No.1 i.e., Kalegowda. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are the demand register extracts. 12. Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 are the demand register extracts. 12. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that there is no reference that plaintiff has retained the barn and she has obtained a license for the construction of the barn. To prove the claim of the plaintiff, first of all the plaintiff has not produced any TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703. She also admits in the cross-examination that the tobacco board issues a TBGR passbook to the Tobacco growers. She has denied that she was given a temporary permit by the tobacco board, and the license was temporary in nature. She admitted that she has not sold the Tobacco at Kamalapura since the board informed her as she had sold the barn to defendant No.1. 13. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1. She denied the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff had sold the land in Sy.No.94/6 under the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2001, and after the execution of the registered sale deed, defendant No.1 applied for transfer of TBGR certificate and license in the name of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 after holding due enquiry, transferred TBGR certificate and license in the name of defendant No.1. She submitted that a temporary permit card was issued to the plaintiff, permanent card was not issued in favour of the plaintiff. To prove the defense of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 produced the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D21. 14. From the oral evidence produced by both parties, the plaintiff is claiming to be the absolute holder of the TBGR certificate No.2091703. To prove that the plaintiff is the absolute holder of the TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703, the plaintiff has not produced the said certificate to show that the said certificate was in the plaintiff’s name. Admittedly, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute holder of the TBGR certificate bearing No.2091703. Further, the perusal of the suit documents/ documentary evidence discloses that, the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration of certificate without producing the documents. Further, defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.2 never issued a permanent certificate and license to the plaintiff. They have issued only a temporary, i.e., TSP No.2091703, in 1999, and further, the PW.1 herself admitted in the cross-examination that she had not grown tobacco for two years, i.e., from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. 15. Further, defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.2 never issued a permanent certificate and license to the plaintiff. They have issued only a temporary, i.e., TSP No.2091703, in 1999, and further, the PW.1 herself admitted in the cross-examination that she had not grown tobacco for two years, i.e., from 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. 15. Admittedly, the plaintiff has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1’s husband. As per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, there is a presumption that when a land is transferred, all the things attached to the earth, such as trees, shrubs, and other things attached to the land, such as easements annexed to it, rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer. 16. Admittedly, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, and all the things attached to the land are transferred in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 by operation of law as per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Furthermore, the first Appellate Court was justified in recording its finding that the plaintiff had not produced the TBGR certificate or passbook, as stated in the pleadings or facts and neither she produced the said documents, nor issued a notice to defendant No.2 to 4 to produce those documents. The first Appellate Court, considering the entire evidence on record, was justified in passing the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013 passed in R.A.No.109/2008 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.