A. N. Venugopala Gowda , J.—Defendant has filed this second appeal. Respondent had filed the suit for declaration of her title in respect of suit land and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The trial Court decreed the suit, which when questioned in first appeal by the appellant herein, was affirmed by dismissal of the appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, One Eraiah had two sons by name (1) Eramadaiah @ Gundaiah and (2) Junjappa-the appellant. The respondent is the wife of Eramadaiah @ Gundaiah. Said Eramadaiah @ Gundaiah and the appellant partitioned their properties. One of the items of properties, which was partitioned between them is Sy.No.247/1 of Machahalli village. Each of them took 24 guntas of land in the partition. The property that fell to the share of the respondent—s husband was phoded as Sy.No.247/1A and the property which feil to the share of the appellant was phoded as Sy.No.247/1B. Katha was mutated in their respective names.

3. Appellant got his 24 guntas of land converted into non-agricultural purpose and thereafter, formed residential sites and has disposed of the same. According to the appellant, 6 guntas of land in the said survey number was exchanged by executing a document and thus, he was the owner in possession of 6 guntas out of the said land i.e., Sy.No.247/1A. There was proceedings before the revenue authority with regard to mutation proceedings, since the defendant had got his name entered as Kathedar in respect of the said 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.247/1A (portion of suit land) on the basis of an alleged exchange deed, he contended that he was in possession of the said property as its absolute owner. Respondent/Plaintiff questioned the said Act of the plaintiff and instituted the suit for the said reliefs.

4. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement. In view of the contest, considering the material pleadings, the learned Trial Judge raised three issues. During trial, plaintiff deposed as PW-1 and examined a witness as PW.2, Ex.P-1 to P-8 were marked. Defendant/appellant did not enter the witness box and did not lead any other evidence. Considering the rival contentions and the record, the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit.

5. The appellant questioned the judgment/decree of the Trial Court by filing an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court considering the rival contentions and the record, raised three points for consideration and held that the appellant has failed to prove that the Trial Court had not given him proper and sufficient opportunity to cross-examine PW-2 and also to lead his evidence. It further held that the plaintiff has proved her case and hence, she is entitled for relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for and as a result, the appeal having been found to be without any merit, was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Muniraja, appearing for the appellant, by taking through the impugned judgments, contended that the appellant did not have reasonable opportunity before the Trial Court and in the absence of his evidence, the suit has been disposed of and even otherwise the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and on account of erroneous approach, the suit was decreed and the appeal filed their against was also erroneously dismissed and hence the impugned judgments have given raise to the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum, in view of which the appeal may be admitted for further consideration. Learned counsel also drew my attention to the documents produced along with the application filed seeking permission to produce the additional evidence.

7. Appellant has admitted that the respondent is the wife of his brother late Eramadaiah. He has also admitted that Sy.No.247 was partitioned in equal proportion and that himself and his brother Eramadaiah were allotted 24 guntas of land each