JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in terms of document Ex.P1 and consequently, the mutation - Ex.P2 came into existence as well as Ex.P17 and also RTC stands in the name of the plaintiff in terms of Exs.P3 to P8 and Exs.P13 to P16 and sought for the relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.4 appeared and filed written statement before the Trial Court disputing the document of Ex.P1 and also the revenue document and apart from that also, he has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara and the same also dismissed vide order dated 01.07.1999. The plaintiff relies upon the documents which have been placed on record i.e., Ex.P1 to P17 and the Trial Court also having considered the material on record, the 4 th defendant being the family member of plaintiff and other defendants has gone to the extent of denying that the plaintiff is his mother and has also gone to the extent of filing an affidavit to the effect that his father Late. Veeranna had an illegitimate relationship with Puttamma and the same is discussed in paragraph No.33 and also in paragraph No.35 also taken note of the defence of the defendant and he claims that he has been in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit but not placed any documentary proof with regard to his possession is concerned and hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff relying upon documents of Exs.P1, P2 and P17 and RTC extract - Exs.P3 to P8 and P13 to P16. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point that whether plaintiff No.1 proved her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court?. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point that whether plaintiff No.1 proved her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether it requires interference of this Court?. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record particularly documentary evidence which have been placed on record and also taken note of the document which have been produced by the defendant i.e., appellant Ex.D1 - RTC extract in respect of item No.1 for the year 1989 to 1993 and it shows the name of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as per MR No.6/1983-84 and also MR No.4/1985-86 and partition in column No.(9) and the names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in column No.12(2). Exs.P3, P4 and P5 are the RTC extracts in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule properties showing the name of plaintiff for item No.1 as per MR No.7/1995-96 and also the names of defendant Nos.1 to 4 for the remaining extent as per the partition in MR No.5/1983-84. The Appellate Court having taken note of these documents and also reappraised both oral and documentary evidence and also taken note of Ex.P11 is the registered deed dated 13.07.1999 and it recites that the plaintiff mortgaged the suit schedule property in favour of Sri Siddashivacharya Swamy Gavi Mutt for Rs.15,000/- by delivering the possession for 25 years and within the said period, this mortgage deed is to be taken back by paying mortgage amount. Ex.P12 is the redemption of mortgage deed dated 09.06.2004 and it recites that the plaintiff redeemed the said mortgage. Having taken note of all these documents in paragraph No.26 in detail discussed that an application was filed under Order 26 Rule 10(a) read with Section 75(E) of CPC and the said application was dismissed. An attempt was made by the defendant before the Trial Court to send the document of Ex.P1 for handwriting expert and same was dismissed on 14.09.2012 and suit was decreed on 26.10.2013 after almost one year and defendant No.4 has not challenged the said dismissal order. An attempt was made by the defendant before the Trial Court to send the document of Ex.P1 for handwriting expert and same was dismissed on 14.09.2012 and suit was decreed on 26.10.2013 after almost one year and defendant No.4 has not challenged the said dismissal order. Moreover, in the absence of Ex.P1 also the other documents are taken note of and other documents also clearly discloses that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and confirm the judgement of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, Court has to take note of who has been in possession of the property. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that document of Ex.P1 is disputed and also an application was filed to send the same to the handwriting expert and the same was dismissed and the learned counsel also would contend that Ex.D1 doesn't confirm to the date of document, the ownership or possession and the learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the other documents which have been placed before the Court also not confirm any right in favour of the plaintiff and fails to take note of the document Ex.P1 and cannot be looked into and the learned counsel also would contend that this Court has to frame substantial question of law that as per Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, the document doesn't confirm any right in favour of the plaintiff and also would contend that defendant No.4 questioned Ex.P1 and the same was not taken note of and Appellate court also committed an error in holding that Ex.P11 - registered mortgage deed and Ex.P12 - redemption of mortgage deed executed subsequent to the filing of the suit and considering the same, confirmed the judgement of Trial Court and hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of law. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also considering the material on record and suit is filed only for bare injunction. The issue between the parties is with regard to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also considering the material on record and suit is filed only for bare injunction. The issue between the parties is with regard to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff mainly relies upon the document of family arrangement dated 20.04.1974 and also the Panchayath Arrangement document dated 20.12.1974 and it is also important to note that in order to prove the factum of possession, mainly relies open the document of mutation extract Exs.P2 and P17 and so also the RTC extract Exs.P3 to P8 and also Exs.P13 to 16 and all these documents clearly discloses that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and when such being the case, even though defendant denies the document of Ex.P1 and an attempt was made to send the document to the handwriting expert and the said application was also dismissed in the month of September but judgment was delivered after one year and ultimately the order passed by the Trial Court was attained finality and now cannot raise the question with regard to Ex.P1 and apart from that, the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was also challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and the same attained finality and when such being the case, appellant ought to have filed the suit for declaration when the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff was challenged and dismissed and not made any such attempt, instead of, filed the appeal before the Appellate Court as well as before this Court. 5. 5. When such being the case, when both the Courts have taken note of the fact that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in possession of the property, other than the issue regarding possession in a suit for permanent injunction, the Court cannot touch upon the title issue and hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in granting the relief as sought based on oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence placed on record and hence, I do not find any merit to admit and frame substantial question of law as contended by the appellant's counsel making suggestions to frame substantial question of law and such suggestions would not arise in a case for bare injunction suit. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.