attempt is made to pretend that mother of the defendants is that of original grantee. The defendants have also admitted in the cross-examination that they were in possession of the suit schedule property as they have pleaded in the written statement. The First Appellate Court also considering the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 comes to the conclusion that an attempt is made to contend that they are the absolute owners of the property and the said documents are also in respect of property bearing Sy.No.65 and not Sy.No.68. On re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, both the courts have given the concurrent finding and on perusal of the material available on record, document Ex.P.1 clearly discloses that the property was granted in favour of Parvatamma W/o Nanjappa and though the defendants have claimed that they are the owners and in possession, in order to prove their contention, no documents are placed before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also. To prove the factum of possession as lawful possession also, no documents are produced. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the First
