First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.

JUDGMENT :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2018, passed in A.S.No.100 of 2011 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (in short “the first appellate court”) in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.07.2011 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2005 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (in short “the trial court”).

2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.

3. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff; respondents are the defendants before the courts below.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties i.e. Plot No. 45, 46 and 47 and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, followers etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for damages.

The averments in the plaint, in brief are as under:-

One Beegala Munaswamy was the original owner of Ac.3-00 cents of land comprised to Pimash No.464 and S.No.240/4 of Tiruchanur village accounts. The said One Beegala Munaswamy sold the said property to M. Sathyanararaya Chetty under a registered sale deed, dt. 06-10-1966 and delivered possession of the said property to M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. He prepared lay out on 31-03-1967 and sold plots to several persons. Among them Padmavathamma, D.Narasimhulu Chetty and E. Ramarathnamma purchased plots 45 to 47 respectively under different sale deeds, dt. 28-10-1968 and took possession of the same. The lay out prepared by M. Sathyanararaya Chetty is abutting to the lay out of Deenadayal Naidu. K.C. Venkata Subbaraya Pillai purchased Plot No.44 from the said M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. He in turn sold the same under an agreement of sale in favour of the father of the plaintiff by name K. Narayanaswamy Naidu. He executed a Will in favour of the wife of plaintiff in respect of plot-No.44 and after the death of testator the legatee i.e., the wife of the plaintiff by name Surya Kumari inherited the said property.

On 26-08-1996 when the 2nd defendant tried to interfere the possession of the wife of the plaintiff, the wife of plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.636/1996 on the file of 1ST Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Plot No.44. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.660 of 1996 on the file of the court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Ac.0-23 cents agricultural land by showing wrong boundaries on the basis of fabricated and concocted documents, dated 29-11-1993 and 30-5-1994 purported to be the registered Sale deeds. The said suits were tried jointly and a common Judgment was passed by dismissal of suit in O.S.No.660 of 1996 and the suit in O.S.No.636/1996 was decreed.

The plaintiff purchased Plot Nos. 45, 46 and 47 from Padmavathamma, D. Narasimhulu Chetty and successors of E. Ramarathnamma under a registered sale deeds dated 30-10-2003 and took possession of the same by paying valid consideration. The plaintiff leveled the plots by spending Rs.10,000/-and raised zink sheet shed in the month of August, 2004 in Plot No.46 and has obtained electricity service connection. On 27-10-2004 the defendants without having any right demolished the said constructions and caused loss of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff gave report to the police and they have not taken any action as it is of civil nature. Subsequently Sec. 145 Cr.P.C proceedings were promulgated by the Executive Magistrate. The defendant preferred appeals in A.S.No.85 of 200