IMPORTANT POINT
Findings recorded by Courts below, being question of fact and having been recorded on proper appreciation of evidence on record cannot be interfered with in second appeal.

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the concurrent judgment and order passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by him for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. The subject-matter of the suit is land bearing Survey No.181 measuring 2 acres situated in Sugatur Village of Kolar Taluk.

3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in brief was that, the suit schedule property was granted to one Muniga, son of Thimma of Sigtur Village, under Dharkasth by the revenue authorities on 3.6.1942 and since then, the said Muniga was in possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner; that subsequently, the said Muniga sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff father under a registered sale deed dated 4.1.1971 and placed the plaintiff’s father in possession of the same; that since then the plaintiff’s father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner, till his death; that subsequent to his father’s death, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as is absolute owner; that the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment and they have also denying the title of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendants is stated to be the son-in-law of the 1st defendant.

4. The defendants contested the suit denying the case of the plaintiffs. They inter alia contended that the grant in favour of the Muniga was subsequently cancelled by the revenue authorities and thereafter, the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the 1st defendant, during the year in 1957-58 and since then, he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner. They further contended that since grant in favour of the Muniga was cancelled by virtue of the subsequent sale effected on 4.1.1972, the plaintiff’s father had not derived any title to the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

5. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective extracts and the original sale deed as per Exs P1 to P5. On the other hand, the defendants produced the certified copies of the extract from the dharkasth register issued by the Tehsildar, Kolar Taluk, apart from the saguvali chit, revenue records like RTC mutation, survey sketch etc as per Exs D1 to D12.

6. The Trial Court on assessment of oral and documentary evidence answered the material issues against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the suit schedule property on the ground that the defendants have proved that the grant made in favour of Muniga in the year 1942 has been subsequently cancelled and the suit schedule property has been granted in favour of 1st defendant and therefore, the sale effected by Muniga in favour of the father of the plaintiff has not conveyened any title in this favour, as such, the plaintiff cannot be declared any title in his favour of such, the plaintiff cannot be declared as the owner of the suit schedule property. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant plaintiff filed appeal in RA No.273 of 2008 before the lower Appellate Court.

7. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal. It is against these concurrent judgment of the Courts below, the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for t