JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2020 passed in R.A.No.267/2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 28.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.77/2013, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit schedule property from one B.M. Siddalingappa of Mathodu village on 23.04.1986. Since the date of sale deed, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit schedule property in their own right as owners and paying the land revenue to the Government. The RTC of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff No.1. The suit property originally belongs to one B.M. Siddalingappa, who has executed agreement in favour of one D.L. Gurusiddappa. The said B.M. Siddalingappa failed to execute a registered sale deed as per the agreement. Hence, D.L.Gurusiddappa filed O.S.No.35/1985 for specific performance. The said suit came to be compromised, wherein Siddalingappa agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of D.L. Gurusiddappa or to the person showed by the said D.L. Gurusiddappa. Accordingly, on 23.04.1986, B.M.Siddalingappa executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. After purchase, the plaintiffs planted 62 coconut trees in 2 acres on the western side and eastern 1 acre is dry land. The defendants have no right or interest over the suit schedule property and are unnecessarily interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. Even though the village elders advised to the defendants, they are not ready to hear the advise. The cause of action for the suit arose on last week of February 2013 and hence, filed a suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The defendants appeared through their advocate. The defendant No.2 filed written statement, which was adapted by defendant Nos.1 and 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the plaint averments has to be proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee. The suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Now the plaintiffs by creating false boundaries filed the false suit. The defendant No.2 filed written statement, which was adapted by defendant Nos.1 and 3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have contended that the plaint averments has to be proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee. The suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Now the plaintiffs by creating false boundaries filed the false suit. As per the defendants, defendant No.1’s husband Marappa, defendant No.2 Rangappa and defendant No.3’s husband Chikkanna were the owners of 3 acres in Sy.No.3/3, which was granted to them by the Tahasildar on 28.05.1963. Now, the said Sy.No.3/3 is changed as Sy.No.31. Now they are the owners of the said Sy.No.31 measuring 3 acres. The plaintiffs with an intention to grab the property have filed this false suit and hence prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove the interference of defendants as alleged in the plaint? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for suit relief's? 4. What order or decree? 5. The Trial Court gave an opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence and accordingly plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and examined other two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other two witnesses as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered all the issues in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have derived title from B.M. Siddalingappa, who has executed the sale agreement in favour of D.L. Gurusiddappa and when did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the suit was filed and compromised and accordingly on behalf of the nominee of D.L. Gurusiddappa, sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff No.1. It is also observed that the property claimed by the defendants is different and they are claiming in respect of property in Sy.No.3/3 and the same is re-numbered as Sy.No.31 and the claim of the plaintiffs is in respect of Sy.No.30 and so also in respect of property in Sy.No.3/2. It is also observed that the property claimed by the defendants is different and they are claiming in respect of property in Sy.No.3/3 and the same is re-numbered as Sy.No.31 and the claim of the plaintiffs is in respect of Sy.No.30 and so also in respect of property in Sy.No.3/2. The defendants are claiming Sy.No.31, which is nowhere concerned to the suit since there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 to D.W.3. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.267/2016 and the First Appellate Court considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo as well as after hearing the respective counsel, formulated the following points: 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that plaintiffs are owners in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property with reference to survey number, extent and boundaries? 2. Whether Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by granting the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction? 3. Whether appellants have made out grounds to allow them to adduce additional evidence as sought under I.A.No.IV? 4. Whether appellants have made out grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? 7. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court is not justified in holding that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with reference to survey number, extent and boundaries and also granting of relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Though, an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the same was rejected. However, interfered with the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property from B.M. Siddalingappa and an observation is made that it could be seen that the suit property earlier stood in the name of one Sanna Anjanabhovi. During 1985-86, the name of Sanna Anjanabhovi appears to have been rounded off and the name of B.M. Siddalingappa came to be entered beneath the name of Sanna Anjanabhovi. During 1985-86, the name of Sanna Anjanabhovi appears to have been rounded off and the name of B.M. Siddalingappa came to be entered beneath the name of Sanna Anjanabhovi. It is also observed that Gurusiddappa had filed a suit for specific performance of contract as per the terms of the sale agreement dated 20.12.1984, wherein the said Gurusiddappa and B.M. Siddalilngappa got the matter compromised and thereafter sale deed was executed. 8. The First Appellate Court also observed that the defendants have seriously disputed the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property having claimed that one Billappa, the father of defendant No.2 i.e., father of husband of defendant Nos.1 and 3, namely, Marappa and Chikkanna, was granted land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.3/3 on 28.05.1963. After phodi durasth, Sy.No.3/3 came to be changed as Re.Sy.No.31. The defendants have been enjoying the said property as owners and relied upon the documents and examined two witnesses. It is observed that the land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 3 acres jointly stands in the name of the defendants. The property over which the plaintiffs claim their right, title and possession is land bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres situated at Ballenahally Village, Madadakere Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk. The boundaries are also taken note of and comes to the conclusion that the above boundaries do tally with that of boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed in Ex.P.1. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to B.M.Siddalingappa; whereas in cross-examination of P.W.1, it has come that suit property originally belongs to Sanna Anjanabhovi. The grant certificate – Ex.P.3 and the entries in the RTCs collectively establish the fact that the land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.3/2 was granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi on 13.12.1971 by the then Tahasildar, Hosadurga. It is not coming forth as to how the survey number of the land bearing Sy.No.3/2 granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi came to be changed as Sy.No.30. 9. The First Appellate Court also taken note of that the land granted in Sy.No.3/2 boundaries are different and not as mentioned in Ex.P.1. The plaintiffs have not placed the sketch prepared by the authority at the time of grant. On the face of record, the boundaries described in the grant certificate do not tally with that of boundaries described in the sale deed as well as schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs have not placed the sketch prepared by the authority at the time of grant. On the face of record, the boundaries described in the grant certificate do not tally with that of boundaries described in the sale deed as well as schedule of the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiffs have neither explained nor placed on record any materials to show the change of boundaries over a period of years from the boundaries described in grant certificate to the boundaries described in the sale deed. The serious dispute is in respect of existence of the suit schedule property and P.W.1 admits that he is not aware as to how survey number came to be changed as Sy.No.30. Whereas, the sketch Ex.D.1 pertaining to Re.Sy.No.3, appears to have been prepared at the time of grant, which has not been seriously disputed by the plaintiffs, shows that block No.6 measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.3 was allotted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi and block No.2 measuring 4 acres was allotted in favour of Billaiah. The said sketch appears to have been prepared on 14.04.1964. If the said sketch Ex.D.1 is taken into account, Sanna Anjanabhovi appears to have been granted land in block No.6, i.e., Sy.No.3/6 and Billaiah i.e., father of defendant No.2 was granted block No.2 i.e., Sy.No.3/2. Even assuming that Sanna Anjanabhovi was granted block No.2 in Sy.No.3, the boundaries described in the grant certificate do not tally with that of boundaries appearing in Ex.D.1. That apart, the plaintiffs have not placed any convincing materials and evidence to prove the boundaries described in the sale deed as well as schedule of the plaint, which are not only contrary to the boundaries mentioned in grant certificate Ex.P.3, but also to the description of the properties appearing in Ex.D.1. The First Appellate Court also observed that there is a clause not to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The First Appellate Court observed that as per Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘the said Act’ for short), any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant, shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed. No permission was taken from the Government for purchasing of the property. It is also observed that the identity of the schedule property has not been established and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court failed to take note that the respondents are claiming their right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.31 and the appellants are claiming their right over the land bearing Sy.No.30 of Balenahalli Village and the respondents are not claiming any title in respect of the suit schedule property. When such being the case, the First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion. It is contended that with regard to the identity of the property is concerned, the First Appellate Court committed an error that the same has not been established and the same is a perverse finding made without looking to the oral evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3. During the course of cross-examination, D.W.2 and D.W.3 have categorically admitted that the appellants and the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portion of land which were granted to them. Once the defendants admits that the plaintiffs and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portion of granted land, the First Appellate Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that possession has not been proved and identity has not been proved. 11. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in construing Ex.P.1 as a void document without there being any challenge to the said document, by the grantee of the land under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ? 2. Whether the I Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court unmindful of the fact that the defendants were claiming title to property bearing No.31, when the plaintiffs were claiming title in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.30? 3. Whether the I Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? 12. 3. Whether the I Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that when the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of 3 acres of land, which is morefully described in the schedule i.e., Sy.No.30, having considered the material available on record, the Trial Court rightly granted the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the same in coming to the conclusion that there is a bar under Section 4 of the said Act. The learned counsel would contend that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of Sy.No.30 and there is a sale deed dated 23.04.1986 executed by B.M.Siddalingappa in favour plaintiff No.1. It is contended that earlier B.M.Siddalingappa agreed to sell the property, but he did not execute the sale deed and hence the suit was filed and in the said suit, compromise decree was passed and in terms of the compromise, sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff No.1. It is contended that the plaintiffs cultivated the land and improved the same and there is an admission for improving the land by planting coconut trees and there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 to D.W.3. There is a clear admission that the plaintiffs are in possession and adjacent owners have also admitted the same. Inspite of it, the Appellate Court committed an error in invoking Section 4 of the said Act and erroneously comes to the conclusion that the identity of the property has not been proved and fails to take note of that the dispute is in respect of Sy.Nos.30 and 31. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the plaintiffs have not stated how B.M.Siddalingappa got the property from the original grantee. The learned counsel contend that the property was granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi. How the property flows in favour of B.M.Siddalingappa has not been stated. But the grant order is in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi in terms of Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3 is the grant certificate. The learned counsel contend that the property was granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi. How the property flows in favour of B.M.Siddalingappa has not been stated. But the grant order is in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi in terms of Ex.P.3. Ex.P.3 is the grant certificate. The boundaries in Ex.P.3 is different from the boundaries mentioned in the suit as well as in the sale deed and hence the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that the identity of the property is in dispute and not proved the same and there is no illegality in the order of the First Appellate Court. Ex.D.1 is not disputed in the cross of D.W.1. The appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed only on the ground of identity of the property. 14. In reply to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the bar under Section 4 of the Act not attracts and the property is not granted under the said Act and it is a general grant. The admission of D.W.2 and D.W.3 is a material evidence with regard to the identity of the property. Substantial question of law No.1: 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and also considering the material available on record, the substantial question of law is framed by this Court i.e., whether the Appellate Court was justified in construing Ex.P.1 as a void document without there being any challenge to the said document, by the grantee of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and the said substantial question of law does not arise, but the First Appellate Court committed an error in invoking Section 4 of the said Act. Admittedly, the grant is not under the provisions of the said Act and it is a general grant. The learned counsel for the respondents also not disputes the same. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous in invoking Section 4 of the said Act and this Court framed the said substantial question of law in view of the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.19 reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents also not disputes the same. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous in invoking Section 4 of the said Act and this Court framed the said substantial question of law in view of the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.19 reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. Having perused the documents available on record, the plaintiffs relies upon Ex.P.3 i.e., grant certificate. On perusal of Ex.P.3, the grant was made by issuing Form No.1 under the Land Revenue Act and not under the special enactment and the same was granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi. Having perused this document, nowhere it is referred that the grant was made under the special enactment. The grant was made under the Land Revenue Code i.e., for cultivation of land and holding of land and the same was a Government land and hence the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous. Hence, the first substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in the negative, since the First Appellate Court committed an error in invoking the special enactment. Substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3: 16. The second substantial question of law framed by this Court is whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court unmindful of the fact that the defendants were claiming title to the property bearing No.31, when the plaintiffs were claiming title in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.30. The third substantial question of law framed by this Court is whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. These two substantial questions of law are considered together. It is important to note that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which is morefully described in the schedule i.e., dry and garden land situated at Ballenahally Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, bearing Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the property from B.M.Siddalingappa vide sale deed dated 23.04.1986. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the property from B.M.Siddalingappa vide sale deed dated 23.04.1986. Having considered the written statement, the defendants also not made any title claim in respect of Sy.No.30 and their claim is in respect of Sy.No.3/3, which was granted to them by the Tahasildar on 28.05.1963 and Sy.No.3/3 is changed as Sy.No.31. Now they are the owners in respect of Sy.No.31 and hence it is clear that they are claiming right in respect of Sy.No.31. 17. This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding and this Court has to look into the evidence available on record as to whether there is a perversity in coming to the conclusion with regard to the boundary is concerned. The First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the boundary has not been proved and a detailed discussion was made. It is important to note that the First Appellate Court made an observation that there is a violation of the grant condition and no action was taken regarding any violation of grant condition by the grantee or by the granting authority. The First Appellate Court ought not to have discussed the same when there was no such dispute in the suit and the same was not raised by the defendants before the Trial Court. It is important to note that the Court has to take note of the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 claims based on the title that there was a sale deed of the year 1986 and the defendants also not disputes the fact that there was a sale deed. He admits that Nayakanahatti Village is now called as Ballenahally. P.W.1 admits with regard to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Though suggestion was made that in Ex.P.3 boundaries are different, but P.W.1 did not admit the same. Though P.W.1 admits that the sketch was prepared at the time of purchase, but the said sketch was not placed on record. 18. P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs for proving of the title as well as possession. The plaintiffs relies upon Ex.P.1 sale deed of the year 1986 executed by Siddalingappa in favour of plaintiff No.1. It is important to note that Ex.P.2 pahani is very clear that is in respect of Sy.No.30 to an extent of 3 acres. P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed on behalf of the plaintiffs for proving of the title as well as possession. The plaintiffs relies upon Ex.P.1 sale deed of the year 1986 executed by Siddalingappa in favour of plaintiff No.1. It is important to note that Ex.P.2 pahani is very clear that is in respect of Sy.No.30 to an extent of 3 acres. M.R.No.2/1986-87 came into existence immediately after the sale deed was taken place in favour of plaintiff No.1. The other document relied upon by the plaintiffs is Ex.P.3 – grant certificate. I have already pointed out that the grant was made in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi i.e., in respect of Sy.No.3/2. Ex.P.4 is the pahani, which clearly discloses that the property stands in the name of the plaintiffs and the same is under the cultivation of the plaintiffs and so also Ex.P.5 of the year 1985-86, which came into the name of the vendor of Siddalingappa i.e., prior to the sale i.e., also in respect of Sy.No.30 and not in respect of Sy.No.31 and extent is 3 acres. These documents are very clear that before selling the property by Siddalingappa in favour of the plaintiffs, the property was standing in the name of Siddalingappa and in view of the sale, the name of Sanna Anjanabhovi was rounded off in the year 1982-83 itself in terms of M.R.No.26/1982-83. This document is evident that before selling the property by Siddalinappa in favour of plaintiff No.1, the property was standing in the name of Siddalingappa. 19. It is important to note that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said Siddalingappa executed the sale agreement in favour of D.L. Gurusiddappa in the year 1984 and when he did not come forward to execute the sale deed, a suit was filed and the same was compromised and in terms of the compromise only the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiffs in the year 1986. When such material is available before the Court, the very title as well as possession has been established by the plaintiffs. It is important to note that D.W.1 re-iterated the written statement in his evidence and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. When such material is available before the Court, the very title as well as possession has been established by the plaintiffs. It is important to note that D.W.1 re-iterated the written statement in his evidence and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 5. It is important to note that in the cross-examination of D.W.1, he categorically admits that on the north of his property which was granted in their favour, there is property of Sanna Anjanabhovi. He also admits that on the south, property belongs to Kariyamma and categorically admits that the land of Sanna Anjanabhovi is now in the cultivation of the plaintiffs. Hence, there is a clear admission on the part of D.W.1 that the land of Sanna Anjanabhovi was in cultivation of the plaintiffs. It is suggested that Sanna Anjanabhovi sold the land in favour of Siddalingappa and he says that he is not aware of the same, but not denied the said transaction. It is suggested that Siddalingappa entered into an agreement with D.L.Gurusiddappa and he says that he is not aware of the same and also with regard to the filing of the suit for specific performance and so also compromise entered into between the parties. He also admits that he is nowhere connected with the land of Gopalappa. Hence, it is clear that D.W.1 admits that he is not claiming the property of Gopalappa. It is important to note that he categorically admits with regard to the property which he is claiming is situated on the southern side. He categorically admits that in respect of his land, he also filed a suit against Gopalappa and Chandrappa. He admits that when he had filed the suit, the property of Gopalappa was in existence on the north and he is cultivating the said land. In the written statement not taken the contention that on the north no property of Gopalappa, but claims that the property belongs to Sanna Anjanabhovi. Having taken note of these admissions, it is clear that Sanna Anjanabhovi is having property on the northern side of his property. D.W.1 admits the existence of the property of Sanna Anjanabhovi and the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land. He admits that the property of the plaintiffs is same as it was on the date of filing of the suit. D.W.1 admits the existence of the property of Sanna Anjanabhovi and the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land. He admits that the property of the plaintiffs is same as it was on the date of filing of the suit. He admits that he did not dispute that the plaintiffs property was not in existence in the said suit. It is important to note that it is the case of the plaintiffs that there was a panchayath and in the said panchayath, it was advised to continue with their possession in respect of their property and also not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs and to let them continue. This admission on the part of D.W.1 is clear that there was a panchayath in respect of claiming of the property and the same is pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit. 20. The other witness is D.W.2 and he admits that the suit filed is in respect of Sy.No.31, but actually the same is not in respect of Sy.No.31, but Sy.No.30. In the cross-examination, he categorically admits that he is not aware of how the plaintiffs have acquired the property and on the east Kappanayakanahalli Gadi is in existence. Hence, the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.1 is very clear with regard to the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. D.W.2 also admitted that on the west Doddajjana Bhovi land exists and also admits that on the north, the land of Sanna Anjanabhovi exists and on the south Kariyamma land. The said land is in possession of Rangappa and he got the property by darkasth. He also categorically admits that on the north of the land of Rangappa, the property of Sanna Anjanabhovi is in existence and hence it is clear with regard to the identity of the property is concerned. A suggestion was made that Sanna Anjanabhovi property was sold to Siddalingappa and he says that he is not aware of the same and no specific denial. He admits that the land which was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, to the north there is land of Billappa and the same is cultivated by Rangappa. He admits that on the north Gopalappa and Govindappa are cultivating the land. Having taken note of these admissions, it is clear that the property is identified and also the fact that the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land. He admits that on the north Gopalappa and Govindappa are cultivating the land. Having taken note of these admissions, it is clear that the property is identified and also the fact that the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land. Except denying the purchasing of the land by the plaintiffs from Siddalingappa, everything is admitted regarding cultivation and existence. He even admitted that respective parties are paying tax in respect of their properties. D.W.1 even admitted that the plaintiffs are cultivating the said land and have planted coconut trees. He also admits that the children of Billappa have encroached the land and hence case is filed, but he claims that he is not aware of the encroachment. 21. The other witness D.W.3 also gave similar admissions regarding existence of the property and property is granted in favour of Sanna Anjanabhovi and on the southern side of the said property, the land was granted in favour of Billappa and the defendants are cultivating the said land. He admits that Gopalappa i.e., the plaintiff planted coconut trees and cultivating the land. He admits that the persons who have been granted land, they are cultivating the land respectively. 22. Having considered the material available on record and also the respective admissions which have been extracted above, the admissions are very clear with regard to the identity of the property and respective parties are in possession. D.W.1 to D.W.3 categorically admitted that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the property of Sanna Anjanabhovi, who was the original grantee and his property is on the northern side of the property of the defendants. Specific admissions were given that in respect of the very same land of Sanna Anjanabhovi, these plaintiffs were in possession of the property and the material discloses that Siddalingappa had executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. Ex.P.5 – RTC is very clear that the property was transferred from Sanna Anjanabhovi to Siddalingappa and Siddalingappa in turn executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 and these are the materials available on record was not considered by the First Appellate Court. The very finding of the First Appellate Court that the property is not identified and not proved the identity of the property is against the material on record considering the admission of D.W.1 to D.W.3, which has been narrated above and the very finding amounts to perversity. The very finding of the First Appellate Court that the property is not identified and not proved the identity of the property is against the material on record considering the admission of D.W.1 to D.W.3, which has been narrated above and the very finding amounts to perversity. It is important to note that the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court unmindful of the fact that the defendants were claiming title to the property bearing Sy.No.31 and not in respect of Sy.No.30, which the plaintiffs are claiming. The RTC also specifically discloses the property of Sy.No.30 and not Sy.No.31. The defendants are claiming title in respect of Sy.No.31 and not in respect of Sy.No.30. Under the circumstances, the First Appellate Court committed an error and not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence the substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the negative that the First Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 23. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The second appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.12.2020 passed in R.A.No.267/2016, is set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 28.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.77/2013 is confirmed and restored.