JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This matter is listed for admission. 3. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate Court') in R.A.No.110/2016 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in O.S.No.53/2009. 4. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff and her legal representatives before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction is that the husband of the plaintiff by name Sham Singh was a tenant in respect of 39 guntas of land, which was divided into two portions as 27½ guntas and 12½ guntas in Sy.No.5. Subsequently, the said land was granted in favour of husband of the plaintiff by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala and Form No.10 was issued in favour of her husband in respect of the suit schedule properties. The husband of the plaintiff had also paid premium as per notice issued by the Special Tahsildar attached to the Land Tribunal and the name of husband of plaintiff was mutated in M.R.No.1/82-83. The husband of the plaintiff had also constructed houses over the suit schedule properties and leased in favour of the tenants. After the death of husband of the plaintiff, the plaintiff continued in possession of the suit schedule properties and mutation was also accepted in her name in IHC No.617/83-84. The defendants who are the residents of the same village of the plaintiff had purchased 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/1A from Smt. Mallamma and visited the schedule 'B' property and proclaimed that the property purchased by them is located in suit 'B' schedule property. On the basis of the sale deed, they have also mutated their names in respect of 5 guntas of land and they have also filed a suit in O.S.No.191/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) at Nelamangala against the husband of the plaintiff and brothers. The defendants on the strength of the sale deed was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court considered the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement. Dvn.) at Nelamangala against the husband of the plaintiff and brothers. The defendants on the strength of the sale deed was trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court considered the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement. Since the defendants claimed their right based on the sale deed, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner in possession of "A" and "B" schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of her suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? 4. What order or decree? 6. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff and her legal representatives have examined Special Power of Attorney Holder as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2. They got marked 50 documents as Exs.P1 to P50. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 30 documents as Exs.D1 to D30. 7. The Trial Court considered both oral and documentary evidence. Since the suit was filed for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the Trial Court taking note of the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement and also the evidence of respective parties, discussed in paragraph No.15 with regard to bifurcating the suit schedule property as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and also the claim made by the plaintiff that suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are comprised in Sy.No.5/17 totally measuring 1 acre situated at Makali village, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala taluk. Having considered the boundaries of both the properties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that nowhere it is mentioned that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are situated adjacent to each other. It is also held that if really the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are situated adjacent to each other, the boundary particulars of one of the properties shall have to be mentioned as portion of 'A' or 'B' schedule property. It was also held that according to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the properties located in distinct place. It was also held that according to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the properties located in distinct place. It is also observed that the description of the properties given by the plaintiff in the plaint is not supported by any documentary evidence. 8. In paragraph No.16, the Trial Court also made an observation that it is for the plaintiff to produce necessary documentary evidence before the Court with regard to the boundaries mentioned as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in the plaint. The plaintiff in her claim specifically stated that her husband was the tenant in respect of 39 guntas of land and the Land Tribunal has granted the said land in his favour which is divided into two portions i.e. 27 ½ and 12 ½ guntas, but in the evident of PW1, it is stated that said Sham Singh was tenant in respect of the aforesaid extent of land. The plaintiff in the pleading as well as in the evidence of PW1 specifically claimed that the husband of the plaintiff Sham Singh was tenant in respect of 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/17 and later it was granted in his favour under Ex.P2 grant order, which is divided into two portions as 27 ½ and 12 guntas in Sy.No.5 and later mentioned two portions as 25 ½ guntas and 12 guntas in the evidence of PW.1 but nowhere in Ex.P2 grant order, which is the title deed of the plaintiff, the two bits of lands as described under the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties is not mentioned. Having taken note of these admissions, the Trial Court in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.18, 19, 20 that the plaintiff has not proved boundaries which have been shown in the plaint. The Trial Court also taken note that during the cross-examination of PW.1, it was elicited from his mouth that the Land Tribunal had granted 1 acre 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/6 and 1 acre of land in Sy.No.5/17 in favour of husband of plaintiff. It was elicited from the mouth of PW1 that the suit schedule property comes under Sy.No.5/6, but in the schedule of the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that the suit schedule property comes under Sy.No.5/17, which clearly discloses that the plaintiff is not certain about in which survey number the schedule property is situated. It was elicited from the mouth of PW1 that the suit schedule property comes under Sy.No.5/6, but in the schedule of the plaint, the plaintiff mentioned that the suit schedule property comes under Sy.No.5/17, which clearly discloses that the plaintiff is not certain about in which survey number the schedule property is situated. Further, the Trial Court held that during the cross- examination of PW.1, he has clearly accepted the fact that he has no document to show that the description mentioned in the plaint schedule is granted property to the husband of the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that though there was grant in favour of the husband of the plaintiff as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint, nothing is placed on record to identify the property. 9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the legal representatives of the plaintiff filed an appeal in R.A.No.110/2016 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as the submissions of the respective learned counsel, formulated the following points for consideration:- 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the property shown in the grant order and the suit schedule properties are one and the same? 2. Whether the Learned Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff filed in O.S.No.53/2009 dated 10.06.2016? 3. What order? 10. The First Appellate Court considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as both oral and documentary evidence particularly, the very contention raised by the plaintiff relying upon the document at Ex.P2 - Grant Order and also Ex.P12 granting of occupancy right in favour of her husband in respect of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.5/6 and 1 acre in Sy.No.5/17 and also documentary evidence and defence taken by the defendants which has been discussed in paragraph Nos.29 and 30. In paragraph No.32, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Exs.P2 and P12 disclosed that Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.5/17. However, the said land is not identified with its boundaries in the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. In paragraph No.32, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that Exs.P2 and P12 disclosed that Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.5/17. However, the said land is not identified with its boundaries in the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. It is also taken note of that if the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of 27 ½ guntas and 12½ guntas as shown in the plaint schedule, then the contention raised by the plaintiff would be believed. The plaintiff has given different boundaries to plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties without furnishing any authenticated sketch to prove the same and also taken note of admission given by PW.1 in his cross-examination where he categorically stated that they have not produced any documents to show that the description shown in the plaint schedule is the granted property of the husband of the plaintiff and he has also admitted that there is no document to show the boundaries description of the suit property, which is claimed in the plaint. Hence, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the very admission on the part of PW.1 is fatal to the case of the plaintiff with regard to the very identification of the property. It is also observed in paragraph No.33 that boundaries of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties discloses that they are not adjacent lands. Exs.P2 and P12 does not discloses that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of husband of the plaintiff in respect of two portions of land in Sy.No.5/17. In paragraph No.34, the First Appellate Court also taken note that the plaintiff has proved granting of occupancy right in favour of her husband in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.5/17. However, she has failed to prove that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of her husband in respect of two bits of land what has been claimed in plaint. However, she has failed to prove that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of her husband in respect of two bits of land what has been claimed in plaint. She has also failed to prove that the boundaries described in the plaint schedule relates to 1 acre of land granted in favour of her husband and also comes to the conclusion that when the suit property is not identified with its boundaries as described in the suit schedule, then the question of granting relief of declaration of ownership as well as permanent injunction does not arise. Hence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 11. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the legal representatives of the plaintiff are before this Court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is no dispute with regard to granting of land in terms of Ex.P2. He also brought to the notice of this Court to Ex.P2 where discuss was made regarding claim made by the vendor of the defendants before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal comes to conclusion that no material was placed by the vendor of the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that both the Courts have failed to consider the document at Ex.P2, order of the land Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Trial Court and First Appellate Court have failed to consider the admission made by DW.1 in his cross-examination that the property under Ex.D7 dated 19.09.1997 is neither a part nor a portion of schedule 'B' property. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court to the admission given by DW1 in the cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the defendants claimed that they had purchased the property in Sy.No.5/1A and earlier it was numbered as Sy.No.5/13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contend that the appellants have filed an application (I.A.No.1/2025) seeking appointment of Commissioner to identify the property. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the defendants claimed that they had purchased the property in Sy.No.5/1A and earlier it was numbered as Sy.No.5/13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contend that the appellants have filed an application (I.A.No.1/2025) seeking appointment of Commissioner to identify the property. Learned counsel also vehemently contend that the Commissioner may be appointed at the cost of the appellants to identity the property and prayed this Court to admit the appeal and frame substantial questions of law that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the admission given by DW.1 as well as document at Ex.P2 grant order and also it is not their claim that they are the owners of the property in respect of Sy.No.5/17 and their claim is only in respect of Sy.No.5/1A. Learned counsel also submitted that the property of the appellants have never been acquired and when such being the case, this Court in a second appeal has to frame substantial questions of law in respect of document at Ex.P2, which bears Sy.No.5/1A, which was purchased by the defendants under the sale deed and also claim made by the appellants is distinct in respect of Sy.No.5/17. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the Trial Court in detail taken note of both the oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 and comes to definite conclusion that in respect identity of the property under which declaration and permanent injunction is sought, there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. The learned counsel for the respondents also vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal and also on reassessment of both oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the identity of the property is not proved and though there is grant order made in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.5/17, nothing is placed on record with regard to identity of the property. Hence, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have passed the reasoned order. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. Hence, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have passed the reasoned order. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. It is also not in dispute that the appellants claimed declaration and injunction in respect of two bits of land and also brought to the notice of this Court Ex.P2 grant order passed by the Land Tribunal. No doubt there is grant in favour of husband of the plaintiff to the extent of 39 guntas of land. It is also not the claim of the defendants that they had purchased property in Sy.No.5/17 but their claim is in respect of Sy.No.5/1A. Both of them are not claiming that the suit schedule property belongs to them, but only contention is that description given under the suit schedule is not correct and the same is not supported by the documentary evidence. With regard to the claim of the plaintiff of two bits of land, the Land Tribunal having considered the document, had not granted occupancy rights in respect of two bits of land. The boundaries given in the plaint also are distinct and not as adjacent property to each other and both the boundaries are different boundaries mentioned in the plaint. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has categorically admitted with regard to marking of two bits of land while seeking relief of declaration. Since the plaintiff has sought for relief of ownership over suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties particularly in respect of 27½ guntas and 12½ gutans of land in total 39 guntas, the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.16 to 19 has passed the detailed order. Though the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contend that both the Courts below committed an error, nothing is placed on record before the Court to substantiate his contention that there are two bits of land granted by the Land Tribunal. The First Appellate Court also considered the oral and documentary evidence and framed point for consideration as to whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court also considered the oral and documentary evidence and framed point for consideration as to whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. In order to prove fact that the suit schedule property shown in the plaint is the land which was granted in favour of the husband of the plaintiff in terms of the Ex.P2, nothing is placed on record and no document is also placed even at the time of considering the matter for admission. 15. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for appointment of Commissioner with regard to the identity of the property. The records reveal that no such attempt was made before the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court for appointment of Commissioner. When both the Courts below have given factual finding with regard to the identity of the property and boundaries have not been proved and having considered both oral and documentary evidence, the question of appointment of Commissioner does not arise. 16. When there is no documentary evidence with regard to the identity of property and possession, question of admitting this second appeal does not arise and there is no any perversity in finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. In the absence of such perversity, the question of admitting this second appeal and framing of substantial questions of law does not arise. Hence, no grounds to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law. 17. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER : The appeal is dismissed . Consequently, I.A.No.1/2025 also stands dismissed.