JUDGMENT :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the first defendant questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff thereby declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of suit land and consequently, granting permanent injunction against the defendants.

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

3. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the family tree furnished by defendants' counsel, which is as under:

4. Plaintiff filed a suit by claiming that she is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property which was originally owned by her husband namely Thimma alias Thimmegowda. She further pleaded that after the death of her husband, she has inherited the suit property and the defendants have no manner of right and title much less possession over the suit schedule property. She specifically alleged that defendants have high handedly tried to interfere with her possession. Plaintiff also pleaded that defendant No. 1 has high handedly got her name mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction:

(a) First defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. She claimed that she is the adopted daughter of plaintiff and her husband Thimma and therefore, contended that she has inherited the suit schedule property and claimed to be in exclusive possession.

(b) Plaintiff to substantiate her claim examined herself as PW-1 and one independent witness as PW-2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to 12. Defendants examined three witnesses as DWs. 1 to 3 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to 36.

(c) The Trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence though held that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her title, however, held that plaintiff has failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. Consequently, suit was dismissed.

(d) The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence however took a divergent view insofar as the dispute relating to possession is concerned. The Appellate Court was of the view that it is not in dispute that suit land was originally owned by plaintiff's husband. The Appellate Court held that after the death of original owner Thimmegowda his widow i.e. the present plaintiff has inherited the suit land. If first defendant has failed to establish that she is the adopted daughter, Appellate Court was of the view that there are absolutely no materials indicating as to how the first defendant acquired possession over the suit land. Appellate Court declined to accept the entries in the revenue records. It is in this background, Appellate Court held that the Trial Court erred in basing its conclusion on possession by placing reliance on revenue records. Therefore, Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, allowed the appeal and consequently decreed the suit.

The present second appeal is filed by first defendant.

5. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2015 has admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether Judgment and Decree passed by the lower Appellate Court in allowing the appeal of the plaintiff by setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff, ignoring that the revenue records relating to the suit property are standi