S. Abdul Nazeer, JThis appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 19/2011 (Old No. 125/2005) dated 15.9.2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Channagiri, whereby the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 260/2001 dated 7.10.2004 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Channagiri was set aside and the suit was decreed. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 260/2001 and the appellants are the defendants. The plaintiff filed the above suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, he has purchased the suit schedule property from one R.S. Basavarajappa, son of Sanna Veerappa and R.B. Shivaprasad, son of Basavarajappa under a registered sale deed dated 19.2.1998. He was put in possession of the property by the vendors on the date of sale. In pursuance of the sale deed, mutation was accepted in the name of the plaintiff and accordingly RTCs have been transferred in his name. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the said property. They tried to interfere with his possession from 12.7.2001. In order to protect his possession, he has filed the suit.

2. The defendants have filed their written statement contending that Sy. No. 14 of Mavinahole Village is a vast extent and different portions of the said property have been granted in favour of different persons by the State Government. The said land has not been measured and pakka phoded as per the grant so far. Hence, it is not possible to identify the land, particularly, the suit schedule property. The defendants have purchased the land in Sy. No. 14 measuring 12 acres in the year 1974. The plaintiff claimed the land from the defendants within the property purchased by the defendants. The vendor of the plaintiff was also not in possession of the said land.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has the possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves the interference with his possession by the defendant

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for permanent injunction as prayed

(4) What order or decree"

4. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P6 were marked in his evidence. The first defendant was examined as DW1 and three witnesses have been examined in support of the defendants as DW2 and DW3. Documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D8 were marked in their evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial Court has dismissed the suit on 7.10.2004.

5. The plaintiff challenged the said decree by filing R.A. No. 19/2011 (old No. 125/2005). The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record has allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The defendants have challenged the said decree in this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants would contend that the property said to have been purchased by the plaintiff is not identified. The defendants had purchased the property from R.S. Basavarajappa, son of Sanna Veerappa and R.B. Shivaprasad, son of Basavarajappa measuring 4 acres in Sy. No. 14 of Mavinahole Village. This land has fallen to the share of R.S. Basavarajappa in a family partition at Ex. P4 dated 6.5.1997. The purchase was made by the plaintiff under Ex. P1 sale deed dated 19.2.1998. The partition deed at Ex. P4 does not contain boundaries. The schedule property in the sale deed at Ex. P1 is a non-existent property. Therefore, question of grant of injunction in favour of the plain tiff in respect of suit schedule property does not arise.

7. Though the respondent is served, he has remained unrepresented.

8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the materials placed on record.

9. The case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the property from R.S. Basavarajappa, son of Sanna Veerappa and R.B. Shivaprasad, son of Basavarajappa under a registered sale deed dated 19.2.1998. The katha and the pahani of the suit schedule property has been changed in the name of the plaintiff as per the sale deed. Basavarajappa was allotted the aforesaid 4 acres of land in the partition entered into between the family members at Ex. P4 dated 6.5.1997. It is an admitted position that 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 14/40 of Mavinahole Village had fallen to the share of R.S. Basavarajappa in the partition deed at Ex. P4. As contended by the defendants, the boundaries are not mentioned in the partition deed in respect of the aforesaid property. However, a careful perusal of the partition deed would clearly indicate that the boundary to the property allotted to K.V. Somashekarappa is towards east of the property allotted to R.S. Basavarajappa. The property allotted to K.V. Somashekarappa is Sy. No. 14/41 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and boundary on the eastern side is shown as the property of the third party i.e. R.S. Basavarajappa. This clearly goes to show that the property of R.S. Basavarajappa is identifiable. It appears that due to some mistake, boundary of the property which had fallen to the share of R.S. Basavarajappa has not been stated in the partition deed. But the boundary of K.V. Somashekarappas property has been shown as the property fallen to the share of R.S. Basavarajappa in Ex. P4. Therefore, it cannot be said that property fallen to the share of R.S. Basavarajappa is not identifiable.

10. In the cross-examination, DW1 has deposed that 12 acres under three sale deeds in Sy. No. 14 was purchased by their father and they were in possession of 8 acres and could not identify the remaining 4 acres. It is further stated that the said 8 acres has been partitioned between defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the remaining 4 acres of un-identified property has been allotted to the share of Basavarajappa. This aspect has not been mentioned in the partition deed. Ex. P4 does not say that property allotted to R.S. Basavarajappa is un-identifiable. As noticed above, after purchase of the property, katha and pahani of the property has been changed to the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has proved his title and possession of the suit schedule property. In the circumstances, the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreeing the suit. There is no merit in this appeal. The findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court are on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal as above, I.A. No. 1/2014 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.