1. The rank of the parties as per their ranks before the Trial Court are retained for the purpose of easy understanding and for avoiding confusion.

2. BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX AS PER PLEADINGS:

“The plaintiff has filed a Suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 & 2 pertaining to the site bearing No.56/1-B, Janjar No.173 and property No.22 of Agrahara Village, Banawara Hobli, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District, measuring East to West 40’ and North to South 30’ having specific boundaries towards East- Sharadamma’s site No.56/1-A, West – Sharadamma’s site No.56/2, North – Galli and South – road. The plaintiff has claimed the said property on the basis of a grant by Manakaturu Mandal Panchayath vide Hakkupatra dated 18.2.1991. Since the date of the said grant, the plaintiff has been paying kandayam and is in possession and enjoyment of the same alleging that the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, suit came to be filed in the year 1996.”

3. The defendants 1 & 2 having appeared before the Trial Court, contested the suit by filing their written statement denying the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and it is contended that the said property does not belong to the plaintiff and the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff to the suit schedule property is false. Plaintiff is neither the owner nor is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is specifically stated that the said property which the plaintiff claims, belongs to one Smt. Jayamma.

4. On the basis of the above said rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property has been granted to him by Manakaturu Mandal Panchayath on 8.2.1991?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

3) Whether the defendant proves that the boundaries shown in the schedule are not correct?

4) Whether the plaintiff proves interference by the defendant?

5) What decree or order?

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined two witnesses as PWs.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On the other hand, the power of attorney holder of the first defendant was examined as DW-1 and three witnesses were also examined as DWs.2 to 4. On overall analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his case and therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.”

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), & Addl. CJM, Arsikere in RA No.58/2002. The First Appellate Court after going through the judgment of the Trial Court and on the basis the grounds urged by the appellant, formulated three points for its consideration, which are enumerated below:

“1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial court is illegal and not based upon the evidence on record?

2. Whether the plaintiff/ Appellant established that he has title and possession over suit property?

3. Whether the judgment and decree of the above need to be set aside and suit be decreed?

4. What order?

Ultimately answering all the three points in the ‘Affirmative’, the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court by allowing the appeal and granted decree as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit.”

6. Against the First Appellate Courts’ order, the first defendant preferred this Regular Second Appeal. My Predecessor, on 7.1.2011 after hearing the parties, has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration:

“Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction, by reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which had dismissed the suit on the basis of the evidence inclusive of the Commissioner’s report and whether