BASAPPA Vs. SHANKRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents.

(2.) This second appeal is by the defendant before the Trial Court aggrieved by concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction came to be decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below were in error in recording a finding that the possession of the suit property was with the plaintiffs. It did not take into account the document produced by the appellant and therefore taking this Court through the judgments of the Courts below submission made is that as regards the question of who is in possession of the suit property, the finding recorded by the Courts below are perverse and as such substantial question of law arises for consideration.