1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2007 passed in RA. No. 57 of 2004 on the file of the Civil Jude (Sr.Dn) Challakere, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004 passed in OS. No. 236 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Challakere, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and same was granted to him by the then Grama Panchayat as per Grant Certificate dated 03.10.1969. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and as the defendant / respondent herein interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed OS No. 236 of 2000 before the Trial Court.

4. After service of summons, defendant entered appearance and has filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is the specific case of the defendant that the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession of the same and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated the issues for its consideration.

6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 04 documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendant had examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 05 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. C1 to C3 were marked at the instance of the Trial Court.

7. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.09.2004 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred Regular Appeal in RA. No. 57 of 2004 on the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re - appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.06.2007 allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No. 236 of 2002.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the appellant / plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under S.100 of CPC.

9. This Court by order dated 30.07.2008 framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground Ex.P1 required registration and ignoring Ex.P1 to P4. "

10. I have heard Sri H. K. Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H. Kantha Raja, for the appellant and Sri Shivakumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B. M. Siddappa, for the respondents.

11. Sri H. K. Ravi, learned counsel for the plaintiff / appellant submits that the finding recorded by First Appellate Court that the defendant has disputed the title of the plaintiff and therefore, a cloud has arisen in respect of the suit schedule property and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff ought to have sought for relief of declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule property, is not correct on the ground that though the defendant has raised dispute in respect of the title however, the defendant has not produced any substantial material to prove that the suit schedule property is belong to the defendant and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Putlabai vs. Vaijnath and others reported in MANU / KA / 0403/2005MANU / KA / 0403/2005 : AIR 2005 KAR 419 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Des