JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 29.02.2016 in A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 08.07.2013 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. 2. The appellant Nos.1 to 3 herein are defendant Nos.1, 2 & 5; 1 st respondent herein is plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur.During the pendency of this appeal, 1 st appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.4 to 6. 3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.246 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs. 4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, allowed the appeal by decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 approached this Court by way of second appeal. 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.246 of 2007, is as follows: The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Originally, the suit survey number is for an extent of Ac.16-01 cents under old paimash numbers 72 to 80, under joint possession and enjoyment of three members i.e., Jagannadha Reddy, Paidepalle Parvathamma and Ramaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah i.e., father of plaintiff and that out of the said total extent, the father of plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6-55 cents of land and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. The defendants are now under imprison that the suit land is a poramboke land, and as such, on 18.10.2007, they came to the suit land and tried to occupy the same and also applied for patta and when protested, the defendants proclaimed that they would occupy the plaint schedule property and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. 7. The 2 nd defendant filed written statement before the trial Court and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: Originally, the property in Sy.No.54/1 is an extent of Ac.16-01 cents and it is in joint possession and enjoyment of one Jagannadha Reddy, Parvathamma and Krishnaiah and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the plaintiff is no way concerned with the said three joint pattadars and Krishnaiah, who is the joint pattadar, is different from Radhakrishnaiah, the father of plaintiff and as per the revenue records, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0-50 cents only, but not Ac.6-55 cents and one Chandramouli Reddy and defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and half of the extent in Sy.No.54/1 was acquired by government in the year 1983 and house site pattas were given to BC people on the said land and the beneficiaries constructed the houses long ago. 8. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit as prayed for? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction over the suit property as prayed for? (3) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 were marked. 10. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, wherein, the following point came up for consideration: Whether the appeal is to be allowed? 11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur i.e., the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by decreeing the suit. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 in O.S.No.246 of2007 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 12. On hearing both side counsels at the time of admission of the appeal, on 06.08.2021, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are vitiated in ignoring to consider the principle that the plaintiff has to prove possession over the property on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiff cannot rely upon the latches of the defendants? (2) Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court is vitiated in not framing the points for consideration under Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C.? 13. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and heard Sri V. Venugopala Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri V.Venkata Subbaiah, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to law and he would further contend that the First Appellate Court ought to have seen the corrections made in Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 and he would further contend that the First Appellate Court came to a wrong conclusion without appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner and allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 15. 15. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents would contend that on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned First Appellate Judge rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and there is no need to interfere with the finding arrived by the learned First Appellate Judge. 16. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence.In a case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh , AIR 1993 SC 398 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In a case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar , AIR 1999 SC 471 , the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the First Appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” 17. The undisputed facts of both the parties are originally, the property situated in Sy.No.54/1 for an extent of Ac.16-01 cents which was in possession and enjoyment of one Jagannadha Reddy, Paidepalle Parvathamma and Krishnaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah and the plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.6-50 cents. The contention of the plaintiff is that his father name is Ramakrishnaiah and his father was used to call as Krishnaiah in the village and his father original name was Ramakrishnaiah. The contention of the appellants is that Ramakrishnaiah and Krishnaiah are different. The contention of the plaintiff is that his father name is Ramakrishnaiah and his father was used to call as Krishnaiah in the village and his father original name was Ramakrishnaiah. The contention of the appellants is that Ramakrishnaiah and Krishnaiah are different. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the certificate said to have been issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam and the same is marked as Ex.A.6. Ex.A.6 is certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam goes to show that Talari Ramakrishnaiah and Krishnaiah are one and the same. It was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff failed to examine the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam as a witness. Ex.A.6 was marked through P.W.1. It was not suggested to P.W.1 in cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A.6 is a fabricated document. In cross examination when elicited P.W.1 admits that he has filed a document to show that his father name is Krishnaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah and he also obtained a certificate from the Mandal Tahsildar to show his father name is Krishnaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah which is under Ex.A.6. He further admits that one Muni Krishna Reddy, Mandal Tahsildar, issued Ex.A.6 certificate. Therefore, the plaintiff proved that Krishnaiah @ Ramakrishnaiah are one and the same. It is also admitted case of the defendants that originally the property in Sy.No.54/1 is an extent of Ac.16-01 cents are in possession and enjoyment of one Jagannadha Reddy, Parvathamma and Krishnaiah and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, it is clear that the father of plaintiff by name Krishnaiah @ Ramakrishnaia, Jagannadha Reddy and Parvathamma are in joint possession and enjoyment over Ac.16-01 cents in Sy.No.54/1. The plaint schedule property is part of said Ac.16-01 cents in Sy.No.54/1, which is an extent of Ac.6-50 cents. 18. It was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement itself that as per revenue records one Chandramouli Reddy and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The appellants relied on Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 does not contain the fasli and year. 18. It was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement itself that as per revenue records one Chandramouli Reddy and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The appellants relied on Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 does not contain the fasli and year. Ex.B.1 No.3 adangal goes to show that the 1 st defendant is in possession of Ac.0-40 cents; 2 nd defendant is in possession of Ac.0-40 cents; 4 th defendant is in possession of Ac.0-44 cents and 5 th defendant is in possession of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.54/1 i.e., total extent of Ac.1-74 cents in Sy.No.54/1. Whereas, the suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.6-50 cents in Sy.No.54/1. Moreover, the 3 rd defendant is not in possession of any inch of the land as per Ex.B.1. As stated supra, the suit schedule property is an extent of Ac.6-50 cents in Sy.No.54/1. Ex.B.1 goes to show that the total extent in Sy.No.54/1 is Ac.16- 01 cents, therefore, it is for the defendants to prove that Ac.1-74 cents of land includes Ac.6-50 cents, but except examining the 1 st defendant as D.W.1, no other oral evidence is produced by the defendants. 19. The plaintiff in the suit approached the trial Court for seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from ever interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the initial burden is lies on the plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property as on the date of suit. The evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of other two witnesses/third parties i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 well supported the case of the plaintiff about the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 support the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 are pattadar passbook and title deed passbook. Ex.A.5 is certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam. Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 support the case of the plaintiff. Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 are pattadar passbook and title deed passbook. Ex.A.5 is certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam. Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. It was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that pattadar passbook and title deed passbook and certificate issued in the year 2000 and Ex.A.9 certificate is issued in the year 1999 whereas, the suit is filed in the year 2007, the plaintiff failed to prove his possession by the date of institution of the suit in the year2007. 20. Learned counsel for the defendants placed a reliance of Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande vs. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and another , (2019) 2 ALT 7 wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “As discussed earlier, in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession on the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property on the date of the suit, he is not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction.” No doubt, Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 are said to have been issued in the year2000 by Mandal Revenue Officer and Ex.A.9 is also said to have been issued in the year 1999 by revenue authorities. It is not the case of the defendants that prior to filing of the suit in the year 1999 and 2000, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and subsequently, he has not in possession of the suit schedule property. There is no documentary evidence on behalf of the defendants to show that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6-50 cents in Sy.No.54/1. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the defendants is that extent in pattadar passbook and title deed passbook were materially altered and those cannot be looked into. But the corrections in pattadar passbook and title deed passbook were attested by Mandal Revenue Officer and rubber stamp of Mandal Revenue Officer was also affixed, therefore, there is no force in the contention taken by the defendants that since there were alterations in extent of pattadar passbook and title deed passbook, those cannot be looked into. But the corrections in pattadar passbook and title deed passbook were attested by Mandal Revenue Officer and rubber stamp of Mandal Revenue Officer was also affixed, therefore, there is no force in the contention taken by the defendants that since there were alterations in extent of pattadar passbook and title deed passbook, those cannot be looked into. Moreover, Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.9 goes to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.6-50 cents in Sy.No.54/1. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the defendants is that the plaintiff is a village servant and that he managed the revenue authorities and obtained those documents. To prove the alleged plea, no evidence is produced by the defendants. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the defendants that by managing revenue officials, the plaintiff obtained relevant documents. The defendants in the case on hand, also not taken any steps to summon the revenue authorities and revenue records. Admittedly, no steps have been taken by the defendants to summon the revenue authorities and revenue records to prove the alleged plea taken by the defendants that by managing the revenue authorities, the plaintiff obtained Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 and Ex.A.9 documents. 21. Learned counsel for the defendants place a reliance of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. vs. A. Ramalingam , (2011) AIR (SC) Civil 940 , wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC provide guidelines for the appellate court as to how the court has to proceed and decide the case. The provisions should be read in such a way as to require that the various particulars mentioned therein should be taken into consideration. Thus, it must be evident from the judgment of the appellate court that the court has properly appreciated the facts/evidence, applied its mind and decided the case considering the material on record. It would amount to substantial compliance of the said provisions if the appellate court's judgment is based on the independent assessment of the relevant evidence on all important aspect of the matter and the findings of the appellate court are well founded and quite convincing. It is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. It is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final court of fact, the first appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. Such exercise should be done after formulating the points for consideration in terms of the said provisions and the court must proceed in adherence to the requirements of the said statutory provisions.” In the case on hand, the First Appellate Court thoroughly examined all aspects and reversed the finding of the trial Court simply because the point for consideration is not properly framed, it cannot be said that the total judgment of the First Appellate Court is perverse. The First Appellate Court properly discharged its duty by appreciating the evidence on record before the Court. The present suit is not a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, it is a simple suit for permanent injunction, there is no cloud on the title. I do not found any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Judge and the said decree and judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. Therefore, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 29.02.2016 in A.S.No.9 of 2013, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the second appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.