1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, Perused the judgment of the trial Court and the first appellate Court of the records.

In order to avoid the confusion and repetition of facts, the rank of the parties, as per ranks before the Trial Court is retained.

2. It is seen from the records that, the plaintiff by name Veereshappa filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title, and for vacant possession of the suit schedule properties, a land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 0.14 Guntas, situated at Danapur village, Gangavathi taluka having specific boundaries.

3. The plaintiff claimed that, the suit scheduled property on the ground that, he has purchased the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.6,000/- from its previous owner on 14.02.2003. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties till 09.12.2012.

4. It is alleged that, the defendants are strangers to the suit property, without having any rights, title and interest, whatsoever over the suit property and suddenly came to the suit land and started to dump the wastage and formed a manure-pit-forcibly in the said land. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed that, there was interference to the title of the plaintiff and actual possession was disturbed by means of creating a manure-pit in the said land.

5. The defendants made their appearance and in fact they have taken up the contention that, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land more than 60 years, they have been stocking the fodder and manure etc., in the said land. However, in written statement they have not taken up any such contention as to what exactly the nature of their possession over the suit schedule properties.

6. Considering the rival pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of the suit property land bearing No.7 measuring 14 guntas situated at Danapur village as on the date of the suit?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that on 09/12/2012 the defendants forcibly took the possession over the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for ?

4. What order or decree ?

7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 45 documents and the defendants have adduced evidence of eight witnesses and got exhibited 17 documents. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit of trial Court by answering issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and granting the reliefs as prayed for, by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred the appeal before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Gangavathi in R.A. No.19/2015 on various grounds. The first Appel late Court considering the grounds urged before it, and after going through the judgment of the trial Court, has formulated the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the Trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record ?

2. Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and such calls for interference at the hands of this Court ?

3. What order ?

After reappreciation of the oral and documentary evidence with reference to the pleadings of the parties, the appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by answering point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative. The said two judgments are cal led in question before this Court.

8. The trial Court, in fact, while appreciating the evidence on record, has not only taken the view that, the defendants have not even placed any materials to show that, they are in actual possession and enjoyment of this land in Sy.No.7 to the extent of 14 Guntas and the documents produced by them i.e., Ex.D1 to D17, which are the Patta books, Tax paid receipts and extracts of the demand register issued by the Panchayat. Those docu