JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in OS.No.448/2000 and the same was confirmed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court") in R.A.No.392/2009 dated 21.04.2011.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant contending that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having derived the title by virtue of panchayath parikath dated 03.09.1982 effected between his father K.Nanjappa and his brother Shivashankar measuring 1 acre 10 guntas fallen to his share and 30 guntas fallen to the share of his brother. The revenue entries are mutated in his name. The defendant is a stranger and has no manner of any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, but by creating some documents sheis making hectic effort to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction as against the defendant.

5. Pursuant to the notice, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed the written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint as false and contended that the defendant had purchased the land measuring 2 acres from the father of the plaintiff namely Nanjappa vide sale deed dated 27.10.1986 and the father of the plaintiff purchased the same from one Mohammed Peer Sab in the year 1980. The defendant sought for change of katha in her name, but the Tahsildar, Tumkur, forfeited the land on the ground that the defendant has violated Section 79 of the Land Reforms Act. She also filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, which is still pending. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as alleged at para-2 of the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant has interfered with his possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as alleged at para-4 of the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the cause of action arose for the suit as alleged at para-5 of the plaint?

4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to the relief as sought for?

5. What order or decree?

7. To substantiate the contention, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and he also got examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked 12 documents as per Exs.P. 1 to P. 12 and on behalf of the defendant, one Shyamalal Agarwal examined as D.W.1 and got marked 9 documents as per Exs.D1 to D9. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") and sought permission to produce additional documents and after hearing the arguments, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 21.04.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this second appeal.

8. This Court admitted the appeal on 21.06.2011 on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether both the courts below are legally correct in dismissing the suit of plaintiff on the ground that, his possession is not legal, without examining the que