SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellants-plaintiffs call in question the judgment and decree of the Court-below allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court with a direction to allow the parties to lead further evidence and to dispose of the case afresh.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendant has no right whatsoever in an area measuring 0. 4. 0 of Sy. No. 113 of Shedageri Village and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiff also gave the boundaries of the area in respect of which the suit was filed. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land was granted to them on 19. 1. 1972 under a Kabulayat executed by him in favour of the Government and possession was handed over to him on 21. 1. 1972 and mutation entry No. 3023 has also been effected in that regard. The plaintiff further averred that on 1. 10. 1973 the survey of the land was conducted and in the month of December, 1972 an area of 0-2-5 in Sy. No. 113 and 114 A was granted to the defendant and in respect of the said grant in favour of the defendant the mutation entry 3102 has been effected. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff the defendant trespassed over the suit land and has put up some construction over part of the suit land. On the basis of these averments the plaintiff sought for the decree of declaration and prohibitive injunction.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff never took possession of the suit land and the documents on which the plaintiff relies are all got up documents in collusion with the revenue authorities, that the defendant and his family members are resisting in the suit land and are in actual and continuous possession of the same since 1972; that he had been treating the said land as his own and that he has perfected his title by adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court formulated eight issues. All the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The issue of adverse possession was dealt with by the trial Court as issue No. 7 and the same was answered in the negative and against the defendant. Being aggrieved, the defendant went up in appeal before the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Karwar.

( 5 ) THE Court-below framed the following issues as arising for its consideration: * M. S. A. No. 141/2001 dated 16th April 20031) Whether there are legal infirmities in the judgment of the Trial Court? 2) Whether production of the additional evidence as is sought for can be allowed?answering both the issues in the affirmative the Court-below allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh trial. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff.

( 6 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel on both sides.

( 7 ) THE question that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: whether the Court-below was right in remanding the matter back to the Trial Court on the grounds mentioned by it in the impugned Order?

( 8 ) THE order of remand by the Court-below rests on the reasoning that the exact measurement of the portion actually encroached upon by the defendant is not forthcoming in the record. The Court-below was of the view that in the absence of such specific identification of the encroached area by the defendant the decree would become vague and unexecutable. The Court-below has reasoned that production of survey map as additional evidence by the appellant (defendant) would be necessary for proper identification of the suit land. The defence set-up by the defendant in the trial was one of adverse possession. The defendant never claimed that he is the owner of the portion of the land on which allegedly he had encroached upon. The plaintiff has given the boundaries of the suit land. The Trial Court had also appointed a Commissioner for local inspection of the spot. The Commissioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document