The courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their exclusive possession over the plaint schedule property. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant including the coconut plucker casts a serious doubt as to whether the plaintiffs are in absolute possession of the property. The Lower Appellate Court has rightly observed that the remedy of the plaintiffs is to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for fixation of boundary. The Lower Appellate Court has relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchireddy (dead) by Lrs and others (AIR 2008 SC 2033) to come to such a conclusion which I respectfully follow. 2. It is submitted that CRP.No.546/2014 is pending on the file of this Court against the certificate of purchase issued to the defendant. I hasten to add that the said Civil Revision Petition shall be disposed of untrammelled by the judgment in the present Regular Second Appeal. Only possession has R.S.A.No.1131/2014.
2 been considered in the suit for injunction leaving open the question of title to be adjudicated in a proper suit. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal.
The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
nj.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.