JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.13/2017 by the First Appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.135/2011 by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial Court that the plaintiff got property under relinquishment deed dated 18.04.1998 executed by defendant No.3 by name Annegowda S/o Yalegowda. It is also contended that defendant No.3 has not come forward to register the said relinquishment deed and hence, an appeal was filed before the District Registrar in RAP No.1/41998-99 and as per the direction of the District Registrar, he said relinquishment deed got registered. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2022 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and the said suit was dismissed and the judgment passed in O.S.No.22/2000 was confirmed in R.A.No.89/2003. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of execution of relinquishment deed and paying the tax regularly to the Government. The defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property causing obstructions to the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In pursuance to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed their written statement contending that the plaintiff wrongfully mentioned his name as Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda @ Javaregowda in the cause title. The Javaregowda’s father name is only Javaregowda not Puttalakkegowda. Only with an intention to cheat the defendants, the plaintiff has inserted his father name as Javaregowda @ Puttalakkegowda in the cause title. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that the plaintiff has not at all obtained the property under relinquishment deed. Due to ignorance of law and non- availability of documents, O.S.No.22/2000 and R.A.No.89/2003 were dismissed. 5. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that the plaintiff has not at all obtained the property under relinquishment deed. Due to ignorance of law and non- availability of documents, O.S.No.22/2000 and R.A.No.89/2003 were dismissed. 5. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has not at all executed the relinquishment deed dated 18.04.1998 in favour of the plaintiff. 6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the plaint and also in the written statement, framed the following Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief as sought for? 4. What order or decree? 7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and defendant No.3 examined as DW2 and another two witnesses were examined as DW3 and DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D14. The Trial Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and admission on the part of the defendants’ witnesses and also taken note of the fact that there was a judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.22/2000 and also dismissal of R.A.No.89/2003. The Trial Court taken note of the fact the plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and produced the documents at Ex.P1 to P4 to show that the suit which was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the relief of declaration to declare that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners and also sought for the relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. The Trial Court also taken note of affidavit filed by defendant No.1 and Ex.D1 which reveals that Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda has got four children namely, Javaregowda, Subbamma, Kalamma and Kempamma was also taken note of regarding discrepancy of name of father as Puttalakkegowda and also taken note of in the earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000, same name was given so also taken note of Ex.D8 wherein name is mentioned as Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda as per the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar in RTC No.5/2007 dated 19.10.2007 and not accepted the contention of the defendant regarding mis-description of the name. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that one of the witness was not subjected for cross-examination i.e., DW3 and his evidence was expunged and also taken note of admission on the part of other witnesses that they are the relatives. Particularly, in paragraph 20, taken note of issue was framed that whether defendant No.2 proves that defendant No.1 has executed a relinquishment deed for a valuable consideration and same was answered as affirmative and having considered all these material on record, decreed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.13/2017. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the following points: 1. Whether the appellant proves that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence? 2. Whether the appellant proves that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is illegal? 3. Whether the appellant has made out grounds for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court? 4. Whether the judgment of the Trial Court calls for interference? 5. To what order or decree? 9. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered all the points as affirmative and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.135/2011 only on the ground that the judgment passed in O.S.No.22/2000 could not have been relied by the Trial Court as the same has been passed by the equal ranking Court. In Ex.D2, the name Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda finds place, but not the father’s name of the plaintiff finds place in the said document. In Ex.D2, the name Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda finds place, but not the father’s name of the plaintiff finds place in the said document. Even the voters list also produced at Ex.D9 wherein it is stated that no such person in the said name is in existence. The plaintiff has not examined adjacent owners of the suit schedule property. There is no clear evidence with respect to the identification of the property. First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that though the plaintiff relies upon the relinquishment deed, same is not placed on record and also it is the contention of the plaintiff that he had approached the District Registrar and document was registered in terms of the direction of the District Registrar and all these documents are not placed on record and only placed on record Ex.P1 to P4 which discloses that the suit was filed in the name of Mahadeva and also against defendant No.3 and the same is in respect of Sy.No.27 measuring 23 guntas of Mangalawadi village and the said suit came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that it is held to be ancestral and joint family property of plaintiff and defendant and defendant No.1 is held to be executed relinquishment deed dated 12.06.1997 in favour of defendant No.2 by receiving a sum of Rs.12,000/- from him. The First Appellate Court also taken note of dismissal of the appeal but comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff must proved his case independently, he must stand on his own legs and he must succeed on merits and demerits of his own case and he cannot take advantage of the weakness if any in the case of the defendant. It is contended that plaintiff has not produced sufficient material to prove his case independently with regard to his alleged rights and possession over the property is in dispute and reversed the finding of the Trial Court. 10. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court by the plaintiff. Having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantive questions of law: 1. 10. Being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court by the plaintiff. Having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantive questions of law: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.102.2016 passed in O.S.No.135/2011 on the ground that the earlier judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/2000 dismissing the suit filed by the defendants was not binding on the Trial Court as the same having been passed by the Court of a equal ranking ignoring principles of respondent judicata? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in declining to accept the case of the appellant/plaintiff merely on the premise that the appellant did not produce the relinquishment deed, though the same was subject matter of earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000 which had been held in favour of plaintiff? 11. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court when the Trial Court has given reasoned judgment. The fact that the property originally belongs to the family and family owned 3 acres 18 guntas and same was divided between three brothers and each brother was allotted 1 acre 16 guntas. Defendant No.3 executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 23 guntas. It is also contended that though he had executed the relinquishment deed, he did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff had approached the District Registrar and District Registrar directed to register the document and document got registered. It is also case of the appellant that from the date of registration of relinquishment deed, the plaintiff was put in possession and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the suit in O.S.No.22/2000 and the said suit was dismissed and First Appellate Court also confirmed the said judgment of the Trial Court in R.A.No.89/2003. The counsel would vehemently contend that the said suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The counsel would vehemently contend that the said suit was filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. When there is dismissal of the suit and appeal, the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the judgment passed in O.S.No.22/2000 is with the equal ranking of the Court and the same cannot be considered. The counsel would vehemently contend that the said finding is erroneous and when the said erroneous finding was given, this Court has to answer the first substantive question of law that same is erroneous. The other substantive question of law is that whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court only on the ground that the appellant did not produce the relinquishment deed, though the same was subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000. When the document of relinquishment deed was produced in the earlier suit and definite issue was framed in the said suit and comes to the conclusion that the appellant herein who has been arrayed as defendant has proved the very execution of the relinquishment deed, the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the finding. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in his arguments did not dispute the fact that the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by Annegowda i.e., defendant No.3 in favour of Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda on 12.06.1997 and also in view of the direction of the District Registrar, same was registered on 23.12.1999 is also not in dispute. But contention was taken by defendant No.3 that he did not execute the said relinquishment deed. But the fact that document was registered by virtue of the order of the District Registrar in RAP No.1/1998-99 and same is not in dispute and based on the same, a finding was given by the Trial Court in O.S.No.22/2000. The main contention of the counsel for the respondents that the father name of the plaintiff is Javaregowda not Puttalakkegowda and he impersonated himself as Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda and got registered in his favour by cheating the defendants. Defendant No.3 also specifically denied the execution of relinquishment deed. The main contention of the counsel for the respondents that the father name of the plaintiff is Javaregowda not Puttalakkegowda and he impersonated himself as Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda and got registered in his favour by cheating the defendants. Defendant No.3 also specifically denied the execution of relinquishment deed. The counsel would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the finding of the Trial Court since the plaintiff has not produced the material documents and he also not explained in pleadings that what prevented him to produce the same since burden was on him. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in O.S.No.135/2011, defendant No.3 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement wherein specifically denied the execution of the relinquishment deed and he has been examined as DW2 wherein he denied specifically the execution of the document. When such being the case, in the absence of non-production of relinquishment deed, the Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief and the First Appellate Court rightly reversed the finding of the Trial Court and contend that endorsements at Ex.D6 and D9 clearly establish that plaintiff-Javaregowda is not the son of Puttalakkegowda and same was also taken note of by the First Appellate Court.Hence, it does not require any interference. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court has to analyse the material on record since there is a divergent finding in the light of the substantive questions of law framed by this Court that whether an error has been committed by the First Appellate Court. In keeping the substantive questions of law and also submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, this Court has to re-examine the material on record. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that a document of relinquishment deed was executed by defendant No.3 on 12.06.1997 and he did not come forward to execute the relinquishment deed. Hence, the plaintiff had approached the District Registrar and District Registrar directed and document was also registered by virtue of the order of the District Registrar in RAP No.1/1998-99. It is also not in dispute that earlier, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2000 against their father and also present plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 14. It is also not in dispute that earlier, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2000 against their father and also present plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 14. It is also important to note that in the said suit, issue regarding possession of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2000 was also framed and also issue was framed that whether the defendant proves the very execution of the relinquishment deed. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit giving a definite finding that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2000 were not in possession of the property and also given the finding that defendant has proved the very execution of the document of relinquishment deed. The Trial Court also while passing the judgment for the relief of permanent injunction, taken note of issue framed in O.S.No.22/2000 in paragraph 20 whether defendant No.2 proves that defendant No.1 has executed a relinquishment deed for valuable consideration and also taken note of the same was held as affirmative in O.S.No.22/2000. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment was questioned in R.A.No.89/2003 and the same was also dismissed. The present suit is also filed against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2000 since they started interference with the possession. It is important to note that the suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction and already the Trial Court in O.S.No.22/2000 comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs in the said suit are not in possession in view of the document of relinquishment deed executed in favour of the defendant in the said suit. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/2000 was also challenged in R.A.No.89/2003 and the said appeal was also dismissed. The finding of the Trial Court in O.S.No.22/2000 regarding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and the relinquishment deed executed in favour of the defendant in the said suit was also proved. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in R.A.No.89/2003, the same attained its finality. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in R.A.No.89/2003, the same attained its finality. The First Appellate Court ought not to have comes to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/2000 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs (defendants herein) was not binding on the Trial Court as the same having been passed by the Court of a equal ranking ignoring the principles of res judicata. The First Appellate Court fails to take note of the fact that with regard to the same issues of seeking the relief of permanent injunction and also in respect of the document of relinquishment deed, definite finding was given and in a different regular appeal and also sitting in respect of the judgment of the Trial Court, cannot make such a finding and the same issue cannot be decided in other suit and in a appeal filed against the judgment of the Trial Court and the issue involved between the parties is with regard to the possession is concerned since the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2000 also sought for the relief of permanent injunction and given the finding that they are not in possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiff in the present suit has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction hence, the very principles of res judicata applies as framed the first substantive question of law since the issue of possession was determined in the earlier suit. Hence, the said substantive question of law is answered as negative. 15. The other substantive question of law is that in declining to accept the case of the appellant/plaintiff on the premise that the appellant did not produce the relinquishment deed. This Court is of the opinion that no need to produce that relinquishment deed since the same was the subject matter of earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000. 15. The other substantive question of law is that in declining to accept the case of the appellant/plaintiff on the premise that the appellant did not produce the relinquishment deed. This Court is of the opinion that no need to produce that relinquishment deed since the same was the subject matter of earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000. I have already pointed out that in respect of relinquishment deed also, a issue was framed in O.S.No.22/2000 since the plaintiff in the present suit who has arrayed as defendant took the specific defence that there was a relinquishment deed and same is also obtained as per the direction of the District Registrar on failure of defendant No.3 in the present suit when he did not come forward to execute the same and accordingly, said deed was also registered and placed on record in O.S.No.22/2000. Thus, non-production of relinquishment deed will not take away the right of the plaintiff in the present suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction since based on the said document, case of the present plaintiff was considered and suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.22/2000 was already dismissed in coming to the definite conclusion that there was a relinquishment deed and the present plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property consequent upon the relinquishment deed. The material on record discloses that before the Trial Court produced the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.22/2000 as well as the judgment and decree passed in the appeal in R.A.No.89/2003 but the First Appellate Court did not look into the findings of the Courts given in O.S.No.22/2000 as well as R.A.No.89/2003 and committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.135/2011 on the ground of non-production of relinquishment deed and the same will not disentitles the plaintiff in the present suit since the same was a subject matter of the earlier suit in O.S.No.22/2000 wherein the Trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit in respect of the property in dispute and also regarding possession. Hence, I answer the second substantive question of law as negative. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is allowed. Hence, I answer the second substantive question of law as negative. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.13/2017 by the First Appellate Court is set aside and consequently, the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.135/2011 by the Trial Court is restored.