The admissibility of evidence, particularly the commissioner's report, and the requirement to decide on all points, including title and possession, in property disputes.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal from the judgment and decree dated 18-12-1984, passed by civil judge, madikeri, in regulr appeal No. 39 of 1980, whereby, the learned lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1980, passed by munsiff, virajpet, decreeing the plaintiffs claim in the original suit No. 148 of 1979 and after setting aside the trial court's decree allowed the defendant's appeal by dismissing the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-appellant's case in brief is that the plaintiff-appellant in the present case, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents and their agents as well as the servants from interfering with the plaintiffs right and possession and enjoyment of suit property.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case has been that he is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute more specifically described in the plaint schedule, as per exchange deed dated 25-11-1974, between the plaintiff on the one hand and Smt. P. G. Ponnawa and two others on the other hand, according to the plaintiffs case, plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property mentioned in the plaint schedule. According to plaintiff-appellant, defendant on 20-5-1979, unlawfully attempted to trespass into the north-eastern side of the plaint schedule land after having removed the fence and destroyed a few coffee plants and attempted to take forcible possession of the same. As such, according to the plaintiff, the need for filing the suit for declaration of title to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff s possession and enjoyment.

( 4 ) THE defendant denied the plaint averments. The defendant-respondent averred that the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiff-appellant and 2nd defendant and the northern portion of the suit property measuring 1. 68 acres had fallen to the share of the 2nd defendant and the southern portion had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff and defendants stand in possession of their respective shares over the property in dispute.

( 5 ) THE defendant's case is that the plaintiff and theirfore fathers always remained in use and enjoyment of land of their portions and subsequently, the plaintiff constructed a big house in his area. While, defendants used land of the portion of their share in sy. No. 86, by constructing residential thatched house, cattle shed etc. The plea of resjudicata was also raised.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following: issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule lands? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule lands? 3. Whether defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff? 4. Whether the defendants prove that they were in adverse possession of the northern portion of the suit schedule lands? 5. Is the suit barred by law of limitation and principles of res judicata? 6. To what relief are the parties entitled?

( 7 ) AFTER recording both the party's evidence, both oral as well as entertaining the documents and examining the same, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the property in plaint schedule. It has also granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, that is, the present respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit property. The trial court recorded the following findings: (I) that the plaintiff has established that he is the exclusive owner of the property in dispute. That there is no evidence to prove the partition and possession of the alleged extent of defendant No. 2. The trial c