Point of Law : Both Courts below have found as a matter of fact that there was a sale accompanied by delivery of possession and that is a finding of fact which cannot be disputed - Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. [Para 14]

JUDGMENT :

The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit asserting title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff traces his rights in the suit schedule property by contending that the suit schedule property was owned by his maternal grandfather by name, Ganganna. It is specific case of the plaintiff that Ganganna had only one daughter by name Nagamma, who is the mother of the plaintiff herein. The present suit is filed by contending that the defendant has concocted a fictitious document and is trying to interfere in the suit schedule property and hence, the present suit.

4. On receipt of summons, the defendant has tendered appearance and filed written statement and denied the entire averments made by the plaintiff. The defendant has contended that his father purchased the property from plaintiff’s maternal grandfather under sale deed dated 14.11.1963. The defendant has further contended that his father Hampanna, thereafter who acquired absolute right and title pursuant to the sale deed has bequeathed the property by way of will dated 11.06.1973. The defendant also contended that his father’s name was duly entered in patta book. The defendant also contended that since the market value of the suit property was less than Rs.100/-, the sale deed did not warrant any registration and therefore, his father purchased the suit schedule property under unregistered sale deed and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff and defendant have let in oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. The Trial Court having examined the evidence on record, answered issue No.1 in the Negative and issue No.2 was answered in the Affirmative. The Trial Court held that the defendant has succeeded in establishing his father’s right over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court having examined the rebuttal evidence more particularly, the original tax paid revenue receipts vide Exs.D.3 to D.10 coupled with patta book, which is marked at Ex.D.1, has come to the conclusion that the defendant has succeeded not only in establishing his title but also possession and therefore, proceeded to dismiss the suit.

6. The appellate Court being final fact finding authority has independently assessed oral and documentary evidence and on independent examination of material on record has found that the plaintiff, who is the grandson of one Ganganna S/o Hanumappa cannot assert title over the suit schedule property. Referring to the rebuttal evidence, the appellate Court held that Ex.D.1, which is a patta book issued by the Government of Mysuru in the name of defendant’s father clearly indicates that there is valid transfer of suit schedule property and therefore, the defendant’s father acquired valid title under sale deed vide Ex.D.18. On these set of reasoning, the appellate Court proceeded to concur with the findings of the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. These concurrent findings are under challenge in this appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the material on record. The plaintiff is asserting title over the suit schedule property by contending that the suit schedule property was originally owned by his maternal grandfather. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously argued and contended before this Court that there are no recitals in the sale deed indicating that his maternal grandfather parted with possession. Therefore, he has contended that the document set up by the defendant is a fictitious document. The plaintiff claims that he is in exclusive p