JUDGMENT : RAVI V. HOSMANI, J. 1. Challenging judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in R.A.no.41/2022 and judgment and decree dated 07.09.2022 by Principal Civil Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in O.S.no.444/2015, this second appeal is filed. 2. Sri Gururaj R., learned counsel for appellants submits that appeal is by defendants (except defendant no.6) in O.S.no.444/2015 filed by respondent no.1 (plaintiff) seeking for permanent injunction restraining defendants from trespassing into property bearing Sy.no.80, Block no.2, measuring 30 guntas, situated at Koduvalli village, Vasthare Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Property' ) of which plaintiff was owner. 3. In plaint, it was stated that Suit Property had fallen to share of plaintiff in partition dated 01.07.2015 and by virtue of same, plaintiff had become absolute owner and was in possession and enjoyment of Suit Property. Defendants being villagers without having any right objected plaintiff fencing Suit Property by claiming that said land was required for burial ground. It was stated that Suit Property was never used as burial ground nor reserved for same and that there was 2 Acres of land situated near Kesarike road of Koduvalli village for said purpose. It was stated, since defendants objected against plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of Suit Property, on 14.10.2015, a police complaint was lodged before Aldur Police Station, who directed complainant to approach Civil Court. Therefore, suit was filed. 4. On appearance, defendant no.4 filed written statement adopted by other defendants stating that land bearing Sy.no.80 of Koduvalli village was totally measuring 1 Acre 25 guntas, out of which 0.6 guntas was reserved as burial ground for villagers used for same since 50 to 60 years. It was stated that their application for grant of said land was pending before Revenue Authorities and even Anoor Grama Panchayath had passed a Resolution on 15.10.2015 reserving 0.6 guntas in Suit Property as burial ground for villagers. Taking undue advantage of property situated towards western and southern side of burial ground, plaintiff was trying to encroach on it by showing wrong boundaries. It was alleged that plaintiff had not approached Court with clean hands and sought for dismissal of suit. 5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES 1) Whether plaintiff proves he is possession over suit schedule land as on the date of filing of suit? 2) Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference by defendants over suit schedule land? It was alleged that plaintiff had not approached Court with clean hands and sought for dismissal of suit. 5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following: ISSUES 1) Whether plaintiff proves he is possession over suit schedule land as on the date of filing of suit? 2) Whether plaintiff proves alleged interference by defendants over suit schedule land? 3) Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants? 4) What order or decree? 6. In trial, plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P23. On other side, defendant no.4 examined himself and another witness as DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked Exhibits-D1 to D11. 7. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 3 in affirmative and issue no.4 by decreeing suit. Aggrieved, defendants preferred appeal in R.A.no.41/2022 on various grounds. Based on which, first appellate Court framed following points for its consideration: 1) Whether the appellants/defendants have proved the existence of burial ground in suit schedule property to an extent of 6 guntas before trial Court? 2) Whether the appellants/defendants have proved the plaintiff is trying to encroach upon the burial ground and put fence including the burial ground? 3) Whether the appellants have made out the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and returned with wrong conclusion therefore the judgment of trial Court is required to be set aside? 4) Whether the appellants have made out it is just and necessary to appoint Court Commissioner to elucidate the matter effectively? 5) What order or decree? 8. However without proper re-appreciation, first appellate Court answered points no.1 to 4 in negative and point no.5 by dismissing appeal. Against concurrent erroneous findings, present appeal is filed. 9. It was submitted before trial Court, defendants had specifically contended that some extent of Suit Property was 'A' Kharab land and used as burial ground by villagers since 50 to 60 years. Exhibit-D11 - Index of land extract clearly showed that 5 guntas of land in Sy.no.80 was reserved for burial ground. It was further submitted, defendants had produced application given by villagers to Deputy Commissioner, letter of Anoor Grama Panchayath to Tahsildar based on its Resolution as Exhibits-D8 to D10. 10. It was submitted, Exhibits-D1 to D6 photographs indicated usage as burial ground, while Exhibit-D7 - Record of Rights ( 'RoR' for short) showed nature of kharab as 'A' Kharab. It was further submitted, defendants had produced application given by villagers to Deputy Commissioner, letter of Anoor Grama Panchayath to Tahsildar based on its Resolution as Exhibits-D8 to D10. 10. It was submitted, Exhibits-D1 to D6 photographs indicated usage as burial ground, while Exhibit-D7 - Record of Rights ( 'RoR' for short) showed nature of kharab as 'A' Kharab. Thus, defendants had produced sufficient material to substantiate their contention. Without proper appreciation of same, suit was erroneously decreed and confirmed in appeal. Thus substantial question of law about improper appreciation of material on record arose for consideration. On said basis sought for admission and allowing appeal. 11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and decree. 12. This second appeal is by defendants (except defendant no.6, who is arrayed as respondent no.2) against concurrent findings, decreeing plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction. 13. At outset, it is noticed that there is no dispute about land bearing Sy.no.80, Block no.2 of Koduvalli village belonging to plaintiff. Contention of defendants is that a portion of it was 'A' Kharab land used as burial ground, with regard to which, application for grant was filed before Revenue Authorities. While passing impugned judgment, trial Court appreciated rival pleadings, it took note of deposition of plaintiff as PW.1 and production of RoR, Mutation Register extracts, Application given to Revenue Inspector, Communication by Revenue Inspector to Tahsildar, Mahazar, Deed of Partition, 11(E) - Sketch, Endorsement given by Police, RoR, Photographs and CDs as Exhibits-P1 to P23. 14. It noted that Exhibit-P1 indicated plaintiff and his brother Byregowda as possessors and cultivators of 30 guntas each. It noted Exhibit-P6 - Partition Deed dated 01.07.2015, recorded allotment of 32.08 guntas in Sy.no.80 including Pot 'A' Kharab of 2.08 guntas and portion of land in Sy.no.22/2 being allotted to share of plaintiff and similar extent of land to his brother Byregowda. It noted that defendants were claiming right over Kharab land for use as burial ground. It noted, nature of Kharab as 'A' Kharab i.e. uncultivable land and not 'B' Kharab which included lands reserved for public purposes such as road, footpath, tank, stream, burial ground etc. 15. For determining nature of Kharab, it referred to Exhibits-P1, D7 and D8 mentioning it as 'A' Kharab. Though entry in Column no.22 of Exhibit-D11 showed it being reserved as burial ground, it was contrary to Revenue Inspector's report as per Exhibit-D10. 15. For determining nature of Kharab, it referred to Exhibits-P1, D7 and D8 mentioning it as 'A' Kharab. Though entry in Column no.22 of Exhibit-D11 showed it being reserved as burial ground, it was contrary to Revenue Inspector's report as per Exhibit-D10. It also noticed Exhibit-P4 showed existence of 'A' Kharab land in Sy.no.80. Thus, there was contradictory material about nature of Kharab land. It referred to cross- examination of DW-1, wherein he stated that he does not know about nature of Kharab land in Suit Property whether 'A' Kharab or 'B' Kharab. Thereafter, it referred to Resolution having been passed by Grama Panchayath and application having been filed by villagers before Deputy Commissioner for grant. 16. Based on same, it concluded that there was no material to substantiate that land was being used as burial ground. And taking note of Resolution passed by Grama Panchayath on 15.10.2015 and application filed before Deputy Commissioner in same year as substantiating plaintiff’s claim. It is noted defendants' application for grant was pending before Deputy Commissioner and therefore, it proceeded to hold plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of Suit Property including Kharab land and defendants claiming right over Suit Property as causing obstruction and interference and accordingly proceeded to decree suit for permanent injunction. 17. It is also seen that first appellate Court on re-appreciation concurred with said findings. Though substantial question of law sought to be urged is improper consideration of material on behalf of defendants, when there is no dispute about plaintiff being owner of land in question and documents show nature of Kharab as 'A' Kharab, claim of defendants about use of said land for burial ground cannot be stated to be substantiated. Both Courts have concurrently held that plaintiff being in possession of said land and granted injunction. From above, it cannot be stated that there is improper consideration of material produced by defendants or about non-consideration of any part of material on record. No ground of perversity in findings is made out. 18. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Appeal is therefore dismissed without being admitted. In view of dismissal of appeal, I.A.no.1/2023 is dismissed as unnecessary.