IMPORTANT POINT
The First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's findings by disregarding substantial documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's lawful possession of the land.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. H.P.Sandesh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent was served and entered appearance through Sri. Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel and he was designated as Senior counsel and thereafter, his colleague undertaken to file vakalath for respondent and inspite of several opportunity, not filed vakalath. Now, the counsel submits that the respondent is not responding to the letter and it shows that the respondent is not interested in pursuing the matter.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property measuring 2 acres of land in Sy.No.174 of Byduvalli Village of Mudigere Taluk is granted in his favour and he is in lawful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the same by cultivating cardamom. The plaintiff has fenced the above said property and the defendant, who is having no manner of title or interest over the suit schedule property, that on 13.08.1994 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The illegal acts of the defendant was resisted by the plaintiff, who made an attempt to dispossess him. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property from the last 35 years continuously, uninterruptedly, peacefully and openly to the knowledge of the whole world including the plaintiff and he is paying the kandayam and he is in possession of the suit schedule property and contend that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.

4. The Trial Court, having considered the grounds urged in the plaint as well as the written statement, framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., 2 acres of land in Sy.No.174 of Byduvalli Village, as on the date of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the interference of the defendant as alleged in the plaint?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

4) What order or decree?".

5. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined Special Power of Attorney holder as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined two witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and not marked any evidence.

6. The Trial Court, taken note of the material available on record, particularly the documents of Exs.P1 to P5 i.e., the certified copy of the grant order, memorandum together with mahazar as well as the list of grantees issued by the Deputy Commissioner, accepted the case of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also proved that defendant tried to interfere with the possession and answered issue Nos.1 to 3 as 'affirmative' and granted the judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.82/2004. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court, in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted and the documents which have been produced not substantiates the case of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of reversal by the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

8. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, this Court vide order dated 03.11.2010 framed the following substantial question of law for consideration before this Court:

"(1) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of fact of the trial Court with reference to the material documents that were produced while the lower appellate C