JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This matter is listed for admission. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S.No.166/2007 pleaded that the land was granted in favour of the plaintiff and also pleaded that they have dispossessed and also entitled for the relief of possession and defendant took the specific defense that from 1984 onwards they are in possession of the property with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, it amounts to an adverse possession and additional issue was also framed as whether the 2 nd defendant proves that adverse possession in S.No.235/1 measuring 0.50 acres of land of plaint schedule property since from 24 th March 1986 and also framed another additional issue whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of defendant No.3. 3. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleading and the defense of the defendant framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The 3 rd plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the other side defendant Nos.1 and 3 examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and 6 witnesses are examined as D.W.3 to D.W.8 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.59. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence, comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are the owners of the ‘A’ schedule property. However, comes to the conclusion that with regard to the forcible dispossession of plaintiff from suit schedule property by answering issue Nos.2 and 3 and answered issue No.4 in coming to the conclusion that defendants are in adverse possession and so also answered issue No.5 as affirmative and comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as sought and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that adverse possession claimed by the defendant is proved. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court and also the reasoning, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.5/2015. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, formulated the point whether the Trial Court justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and whether it requires interference of this Court. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court and also the reasoning, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.5/2015. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, formulated the point whether the Trial Court justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and whether it requires interference of this Court. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed the material available on record, particularly taking into note of the admission on the part of P.W.1 that neither the plaintiff nor their father were permitted the defendants to occupy the shed situated in the suit land and contend that plaintiff’s uncle who permitted the defendants to occupy the shed situated in the suit property and also taken note of the crux of the issue whether they are permissive possession of the suit schedule property measuring 1 acre and 0.50 acres respectively and whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the suit property against the plaintiffs for a period of more than 12 years and the same has been discussed in detail by the First Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that the theory of permissive possession has not been proved. On the other hand defendants have proved that they are in possession of the property with the knowledge of the plaintiff since the plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1 categorically admitted that the coconut and Areca nuts in the suit schedule property are aged about 15 years and the said coconut and Areca plants are raised by the defendants and the said admission was also taken note of in paragraph No.35 of the First Appellate Court judgment and comes to the conclusion that defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property. The very claim of the plaintiff that they are in permissive possession is not tenable. 5. The very claim of the plaintiff that they are in permissive possession is not tenable. 5. The First Appellate Court having considered the material available on record and re-assessed the same and also discussed with regard to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2021) 1 AIR KarR5: (2020) AIR(SC)4178 in case of Narasamma and others V/s A.Krishnappa (Dead) through LRs’ wherein discussion was made with regard to the adverse possession where there is a permissive possession given by the owner and the defendants claims that the same has become adverse and also taken note of adverse possession as to the in public and to be knowledge of the true owner as adverse and also in order to establish the adverse possession an enquiry is required to be made into the starting point of such adverse possession and all these factors were taken note of and also taken note of the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2019) 136 ALR 195 in case of Mallikarjunaiah V/s Nanjaiah and others wherein also discussion was made with regard to the Limitation Act and Article 65 with regard to the adverse possession and elaborate discussion was made and comes to the conclusion that permissive possession has not been proved. On the other hand, the defendants have proved that they are in adverse possession with the knowledge of plaintiff since P.W.1 categorically admitted that even construction made by the defendant is also not objected and also admission to that effect and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 6. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the second appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the material on record particularly the respondents have filed Form No.7 as per the amended provisions of Land Reforms Act seeking declaration as a tenant of the suit property. Later as an after thought, the respondent did not press the declaration filed by them in order to defeat the claim of the appellants. Later as an after thought, the respondent did not press the declaration filed by them in order to defeat the claim of the appellants. The counsel also would vehemently contend that hand written RTC which mentions the name of the respondent which is nothing but a fabricated document and came into existence in a collusion with the revenue official and uninterrupted and continuous possession has not been proved and when such being the case, the Trial Court ought not to have considered the adverse possession. Hence, the counsel would vehemently contend that this Court has to frame a substantive question of law that the finding that the respondents are in adverse possession of the suit schedule property when the respondents had filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and when such claim was made, there cannot be any order of adverse possession. 7. The counsel appearing for the appellants also re-iterates the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also contend that the entry made in the RTC is nothing but a created document that too at the instance of the revenue officials. Apart from that when there is a clear admission that filing of Form No.7A, ought not to have granted the relief of adverse possession though it is subsequently withdrawn. 8. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that even though such an application is filed and the Trial Court having taken note of material on record, particularly though such application was filed, immediately the same was withdrawn and same was also appreciated by the Trial Court and also having taken note of admission on the part of P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination both construction of house and planting of trees in the land in which the plaintiff claims the possession from the defendant taken note of and detailed discussion was made in paragraph Nos.29 to 33 and rightly answered the claim of adverse possession and explanation given by the defendant with regard to the making of application that is Form No.77A also explained. The First Appellate Court also rightly considered the material available on record having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the specific defense and rightly comes to the conclusion that permissive possession has not been proved. The First Appellate Court also rightly considered the material available on record having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the specific defense and rightly comes to the conclusion that permissive possession has not been proved. Though specific contention was taken that permissive possession was given in the year 1999 and voluminous documents which have been placed before this Court clearly discloses that possession was established even prior to 1999 and construction was made earlier and the same is also admitted and also witnesses for having provided the electricity also examined before the Trial Court, D.W.1 to D.W.8 have been examined and possession has been established and that too with the knowledge of the P.W.1. Hence, this Court cannot find fault with the second appeal and admit and frame substantive question of law. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents it is not in dispute that originally property belongs to the plaintiff, but the specific contention of the plaintiff that they have been dispossessed forcibly and in order to prove the factum that they have been forcibly dispossessed nothing placed on record. On the other hand it is the contra evidence that a permissive possession was given in the year 1999 and the same is not accepted by the Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly the P.W.1 categorically admitted the construction made by the defendant and having taken the electricity connection in terms of Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.11 and so also water bill in terms of Ex.D.12 and so also the house tax paid receipts in terms of the Ex.D.13 to Ex.D.17 and certificate issued by the Gram panchayat in terms of Ex.D.18 to Ex.D.19 and several documents are produced with regard to the order and notice issued by the Rubber Board and also tax paid receipts, water bill certificate and voluminous documents are produced as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.59 and the same has been appreciated in a proper perspective and the very claim of the plaintiff that permissive possession was given in the year 1999, but the documents produced by the defendants clearly discloses that Ex.D.1 which pertains to the year from 1997 to 1990. The electricity bills are also produced before the Court and also the house was constructed in the year 1993 and electricity connection was also taken and also all the documents of Gram panchayat clearly establishes that they are in possession. In a case of seeking the relief of possession, the pleadings of the plaintiff must be proved and with regard to the permissive possession, nothing is placed on record. On the other hand, defendants have placed several material before the Court that prior to 1999 they were in possession of the property and also the admissions which have been given by the P.W.1 also extracted by the Trial Court while appreciating the material on record having constructed the house prior to 1999 as well as the coconut plant and Arecanut plant are planted. The P.W.1 categorically admitted that the same are more than 15 to 17 years old and the same has been discussed in paragraph No.29 to 31 and even the evidence of P.W.1 taken note of in paragraph No.27 and possession was also considered. Even First Appellate Court also having considered and re-assessed the material available on record comes to the conclusion that permissive possession has not been proved and there is a clear admission by the P.W.1 that defendants are not in permissive possession and also taken note of the answer elicited from P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination and the same is discussed in detail including the principles laid down in the judgment. In paragraph No.35 also discussed with regard to the Form No.7 as well as the admission of P.W.1 that coconut and Arecanut trees are aged about 15 years and having considered the date of examination of the witnesses and other materials on record and when such material on record and appreciated by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, I do not find any perversity in the finding with regard to the finding of the fact that defendants have been in possession of the property with the knowledge of the plaintiff that they perfected the title by adverse possession. When such being the material available on record, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any substantive question of law as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Second Appeal is dismissed.