JUDGMENT : (M.G.S. KAMAL, J.) 1. This appeal is by defendants No.1, 4(d), 8, 9 and 12 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.120/1998 on the file of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ramdurg (Trial Court), by which the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and declaration with regard to the entries made by the Kadampur Gram Panchayat in respect of the plots in the Panchayat records as null and void was decreed, which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2015 passed in R.A.No.107/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg (First Appellate Court). 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. That originally land bearing R.S.No.93 situated at Budnur village measuring 7 acres 27 guntas belonged to one Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil. That out of the said 7 acre 27 guntas of land, the said Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil sold an extent of 4 acres in favour of one Dyavappa Ishwarappa Chawadi in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 25.01.1989. The description of the said 4 acres of land as shown in the said sale deed is as under: East by land of dundappa Agasar West by remaining land North by remaining land South by Government road 4. That the said land in R.S.No.93 was divided into two parts assigning R.S.No.93/1 to the land measuring 3 acres 27 guntas retained by Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil, while R.S.No.93/2 was assigned to 4 acres of land purchased by Dyavappa Ishwarappa Chawadi. 5. Plaintiff purchased said 4 acres of land in R.S.No.93/2 from the said Dyavappa Ishwarappa Chawadi in terms of registered deed of sale dated 27.04.1998 and his name was mutated in the revenue records vide M.E.No.2112. Ever since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 6. It is alleged that out of the remaining 3 acres 27 gutnas of land with R.S.No.93/1, 30 guntas of land towards northern side had been gifted by said Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil in favour of the Public Instruction Department, Belagavi and had sold another extent of 10 guntas of land. Consequently, R.S.No.93/1 was further divided into R.S.No.93/1A and R.S.No.93/1B measuring 2 acres 27 guntas and 1 acre respectively. R.S.No.93/1A continued to stand in the name of Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil, while R.S.No.93/1B was mutated in the name of Government of Karnataka, Public Instruction Department, Belagavi. 7. Consequently, R.S.No.93/1 was further divided into R.S.No.93/1A and R.S.No.93/1B measuring 2 acres 27 guntas and 1 acre respectively. R.S.No.93/1A continued to stand in the name of Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil, while R.S.No.93/1B was mutated in the name of Government of Karnataka, Public Instruction Department, Belagavi. 7. That in the year 1989 said Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil who had retained 2 acres 27 guntas of land applied for change of land usage from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. The Tahasildar, Ramdurg vide order dated 02.08.1989 granted permission for change of land usage subject to certain conditions. That the said Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil had not complied the said conditions however prepared and submitted bogus hand sketch/map to the Kadampur Gram Panchayat Secretary and obtained allotment of plot numbers. The said map is illegal and disclosed encroachment into the land of the plaintiff illegally. 8. That though the plots could only be formed in the land measuring 2 acres 27 guntas of land, the map purported to show the same in land measuring about 3½ acres. 9. That defendants No.1 to 12 are the purchasers of the site from said Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil towards southern side of the land of the plaintiff which has never been converted from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes. That towards southern side of the land of the plaintiff there existed a public road however defendants No.1 to 12 are threatening to construct houses in the land of the plaintiff towards southern side interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit. 10. Defendants appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant No.8 filed written statement which is adopted by defendants No.1 to 7 and 9 to 10. Defendant No.11 filed his own written statement. It is contended by the defendant No.8 that even prior to institution of the suit, there were permanent structures already existing in the suit property put up by certain persons who have not been arrayed as parties to the suit. That suit for bare injunction was therefore not maintainable. That the description of property as given in the plaint is misconceived, wrong and created and the same does not exist. That the hand sketch produced by the plaintiff is not in accordance with the facts prevailing on the ground. That the plaintiff has intentionally shown existence of Belagavi- Bagalkot road on the southern side of the property which is wrong and denied. That the hand sketch produced by the plaintiff is not in accordance with the facts prevailing on the ground. That the plaintiff has intentionally shown existence of Belagavi- Bagalkot road on the southern side of the property which is wrong and denied. That the plots have been formed for residential purposes by the original owner of land in R.S.No.93 in 2 acres 27 guntas of land by obtaining change of land usage from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose long prior to plaintiff becoming owner of 4 acres of land. The plots have been formed which have been entered into the records of Kadampur Mandal Panchayat. That the said 2 acres 27 guntas of land touches on its southern side the Belagavi-Bagalkot road in whole part and the western side touches the Salahalli through K- Timmapur road. The said land is in “L” shape. 11. The claim of the plaintiff having purchased 4 acres of land from the purchaser of Dyavappa Ishwarappa Chawadi and he having been put in possession of the property is also been denied. It is contended that the defendants No.1 to 10 having purchased the plots from the owner of the land in terms of deeds of sale have become absolute owners in possession and have applied and obtained permission from the Panchayat for putting up residential houses. Contending so, sought for dismissal of the suit. 12. Defendant No.11 also has filed written statement taking the similar contentions as urged by the defendant No.8. 13. Based on the averments and allegations made by the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the description of suit property is proper and correct? 2. Whether the plff. proves that he is possession and enjoyment of suit property? 3. Whether the plff proves that names of defts No.1 to 12 entered for plots by showing situation of same in the suit property in Kadampur Panchayat is void and concocted? 4. Whether the plff proves alleged interference? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the suit is maintainable? 7. Whether the plff proves alleged cause of action? 8. Whether the court fee paid is proper and correct? 9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 10. Whether the plff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction? 11. Whether the plff is entitled for relief of declaration? 12. 6. Whether the suit is maintainable? 7. Whether the plff proves alleged cause of action? 8. Whether the court fee paid is proper and correct? 9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 10. Whether the plff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction? 11. Whether the plff is entitled for relief of declaration? 12. Whether the plff is entitled for the relief of cancellation of entries is Panchayat records? 13. To what reliefs plff is entitled for? 14. What order or decree? 14. Power of attorney holder of the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and exhibited 27 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. Defendants on the other hand have examined 12 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.12 and exhibited 108 documents marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.108. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue No.1 to 4, 7, 10, 11, 12 in the affirmative and issue No.5, 6, 8 and 9 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit as sought for. 15. Being aggrieved, defendants preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.107/2007 on the file of First Appellate Court. Considering the grounds urged, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is the owner of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the suit? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Court in O.S.No.120/1998 dated 20.07.2007 needs interference by this Court? 4. What order? 16. On re-appreciation of evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 17. It is necessary also to know that even on earlier occasion, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal, aggrieved by which the plaintiffs had approached this Court by filing a Regular Second Appeal in RSA No.5223/2008. This Court by order dated 16.08.2012 had allowed the said appeal and had remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court had taken up the matter for fresh consideration and has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants/appellants are before this Court. 18. This Court by order dated 16.08.2012 had allowed the said appeal and had remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court had taken up the matter for fresh consideration and has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants/appellants are before this Court. 18. This Court by order dated 16.03.2017 framed the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether both the Courts below are legally justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs with regard to declaration without noticing the fact that the plaintiffs have not questioned the order of Revenue Authority regarding conversion of 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.93 of Budnur village? ii. Whether both the Courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs have not sought for possession of the suit property from the allotees of the plots formed in 2 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.93 of Budnur village?” 19. Counsel for the appellants at outset submits that; (a) the very hand sketch produced by the plaintiff is contrary to the description given in the plaint and the deeds of sale produced at Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.9 under which vendor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff purchased the property measuring 4 acres. (b) He relies upon the documents namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and Ex.D.81 to Ex.D.85 to justify the claims of the defendants with regard to property measuring 2 acres 27 guntas being in “L” shape. He submits that even in the first deed of sale dated 25.01.1989 (Ex.P.10) under which Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil conveyed 4 acres of land, on the southern side boundary Government road is shown without giving any further details which is depicted even in deed of sale dated 27.04.1998 (Ex.P.9) under which plaintiff purchased the property from Dyavappa Ishwarappa Chawadi. (c) That the road on the southern side mentioned in the said two documents have to be inferred with reference to document at Ex.D.81 to Ex.D.86 where an access road is provided. (d) Thus, referring to these documents learned counsel vehemently submits that the 4 acres of land claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff is situated on the northern side of the property measuring 2 acres 27 guntas in which the layout was formed and plots were carved out which was purchased by the defendants. (d) Thus, referring to these documents learned counsel vehemently submits that the 4 acres of land claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff is situated on the northern side of the property measuring 2 acres 27 guntas in which the layout was formed and plots were carved out which was purchased by the defendants. (e) That the public records such as order of conversion as per Ex.D.77 and the layout approval plan issued by the Panchayat would consistently reflect and indicate the said land to be in “L” shape, with Lokapur- Belagavi road on its southern side. That the contents of the public records have not been appreciated by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in arriving at erroneous conclusion. He submits that since Ex.D.77 order of the Tahasildar providing change of land usage has not been questioned by the plaintiff, the claim made by the plaintiff with regard to the description and location of the property cannot be accepted. (f) Adverting to the second substantial question of law, learned counsel submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 , a suit for bare injunction in the peculiar facts and circumstance of case of this nature is not maintainable. Referring to the pleadings in the written statement he submits that the defendants apart from denying the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, have also set up title in themselves and they are in possession of the plots which were sold to them by Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil under different deeds of sale. Thus, he insists admittedly the plaintiff being out of possession cannot maintain the suit without seeking relief of possession. (g) Thus, he submits substantial question of law need to be answered in favour of the appellants and appeal needs to be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. 20. Thus, he insists admittedly the plaintiff being out of possession cannot maintain the suit without seeking relief of possession. (g) Thus, he submits substantial question of law need to be answered in favour of the appellants and appeal needs to be allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. 20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff taking this Court extensively through the documents submits that; (a) after the purchase of the property by the vendor of the plaintiff and by the plaintiff thereafter, Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil had made a gift to an extent of 30 guntas of land in favour of the State of Karnataka and he has also sold another 10 guntas of land and had only retained 2 acres 27 guntas of land with himself. Based on these alienations survey and phodi was conducted and location of the property was defined by drawing sketches based on which PT sheets were prepared by the survey department as produced at Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15. (b) That the land purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff in terms of deed of sale dated 25.01.1989 as per Ex.P.10 provides specific boundaries. In that what was retained by Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil is only 3 acres 27 guntas on the eastern side and southern side is shown as the Government road. (c) That the plaintiff purchased the very same 4 acres of land in terms of Ex.P.9 on 27.04.1998. The description of the property given in the said document is the one as mentioned in Ex.P.10. The title deeds namely Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.9 read in conjunction with Ex.D.14 and Ex.D.15, he insists, would demonstrate the location of the property purchased by the plaintiff. (d) That the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have appreciated this aspect of the matter and thus come to the conclusion that there is no cloud in the title of the property belonging to the plaintiff. (e) As regards the order of conversion passed by the Tahasildar, learned counsel submits that this Court on earlier occasion, had remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court taking note of the contents of the said documents in which the very description of the property was erroneously mentioned. It is on re-appreciation, the First Appellate Court has come to the just conclusion not to rely upon the said documents. It is on re-appreciation, the First Appellate Court has come to the just conclusion not to rely upon the said documents. Therefore the question of changing the said documents would not arise. (f) Adverting to the second substantial question of law, learned counsel submits that when the Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil had retained only 2 acres 27 guntas of land, he could not have sold any portion of the land belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, question of plaintiff not being in possession of the land sold to him would not arise. Therefore, he submits that the principle of law laid down in the case of Anathula Sudhakar supra, is not applicable to the instant case. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 21. Heard. Perused the records. 22. As rightly taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court there is no confusion or ambiguity in the minds of the plaintiff or the defendants with regard to their respective entitlements. While the plaintiff is claiming his right, title and interest over 4 acres of land having purchased in terms of Ex.P9, the defendants are claiming their rights in respect of 2 acres 27 guntas of land which had been retained by Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil. Thus, neither the plaintiff is claiming any right, title and interest over any portion of the property being claimed by the defendants, nor the defendants are claiming any share, right, title and interest over the property purchased by the plaintiff. The issue is only with regard to the location of their respective properties. 23. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the location of the property has to be traced to the title deeds namely Ex.P10 and P9 and have to be read in conjunction with public records at Ex.P.14 and P15. Rightly so, as parties will have to establish their case based on the documents relied upon by them. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P10 and P9 wherein, the identical boundaries are given which are as under: East: land of Basangouda Dundangouda Patil West: remaining land of Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil North: land of Education Department and South: Government Road 24. Thus, both the aforesaid deeds of sale indicate Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil retaining land on the western side of the property purchased by the plaintiff and on the southern side there exists a government road. 25. Thus, both the aforesaid deeds of sale indicate Mallangouda Ramangouda Patil retaining land on the western side of the property purchased by the plaintiff and on the southern side there exists a government road. 25. On a repeated query by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant to points out from the records if there was any other government road other than Belagavi - Bagalkote existed anywhere in the land originally measuring 7 acres 27 guntas. Learned counsel fairly submits that there is no such government road except an access road shown at Ex.D86. Therefore, it has to be necessarily construed that the government road shown on the southern side of 4 acres of land sold by Mallanagouda Ramangouda Patil in favour of Dyavappa Chawadi, is the said Belagavi - Bagalkote road and nothing else. 26. The remaining 2 acres 27 guntas of land retained by Mallanagouda as per the Ex.P10 and P9 is on the western side. There is no mention of any portion of land retained by Mallanagouda on southern side. As such, the theory of plot of 2 acres 27 guntas retained by Mallanagouda being in ‘L’ shape facing on the southern side of the said road cannot be countenanced. 27. As regards the document produced at Ex.A1 to A15, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have opined that Ex.A3 which is a letter of recommendation issued by the Tahasildar to the Additional Director of Land Records gives erroneous description of the property. If records such as Ex.D81 to D85, are prepared based on such recommendation, as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court, the same cannot be relied upon. In any case Mallanagouda could not have created any further interest over any portion of the land measuring 4 acres situated within the boundaries/descriptions given in Ex.P10 and P9 in favour of anyone much less in favour of the defendants herein. 28. The denial of right, title and interest should be of a substance. In other words the party denying the right of another over a property and claiming right in himself shall substantiate the existence of such right, which is not the case at hand. 28. The denial of right, title and interest should be of a substance. In other words the party denying the right of another over a property and claiming right in himself shall substantiate the existence of such right, which is not the case at hand. In that, Mallanagouda Ramangouda Patil having conveyed 4 acres of land retained nothing for himself in the said land as such, denial of right of the plaintiff based on a sale deed executed by Mallanagouda Ramangouda Patil without having any right or title has no substance. Therefore, the conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court declining the contentions urged by the defendants relying upon by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar supra, cannot be found fault with. 29. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly, appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are hereby confirmed. 30. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants seeks liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 31. Submission is taken on record. 32. It is made clear that the defendants who claim to have purchased their plots in 2 acres 27 guntas of land retained by Mallanagouda Ramangouda Patil are at liberty to seek such remedy as may be available under law and the observations and reasoning arrived by this Court in this appeal are confined only to the extent of 4 acres of land subject matter of the present suit.