Court mandates competent witness examination for validating disputed documents before resolving ownership issues in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed before this Court challenging the order of remand made by the First Appellate Court.

2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that in paragraph Nos.23 that Ex.D.28 is the certified copy issued by the competent Thasildar, Devanahalli Taluk. Once the said registered extract is produced by the defendants, the burden shifts on the plaintiff to show that Ex.D.28 is not genuine and it has been created. In order to falsify that the entries shown in Ex.D.28 are not correct, he has not made any attempt to summon the original register from the Thasildar, Devanahalli Taluk nor he has not produced the certified copy showing that Ex.D.28 is not taken from the original register. In the absence of such materials, behalf of the plaintiff, Ex.D.28 cannot be said to be an illegal and incorrect document and also made an observation in paragraph No.24 that Ex.D.28 against the name of the plaintiff father in two columns, it is written in inverted commas meaning of ‘ditto’ in the Oxford English Dictionary ‘in list the same thing again’. Having considered the document Ex.D.28 comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not made out the case and there was already a cancellation of grant and dismissed the suit, the same has been challenged in the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether more, effective and valid evidence is required on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and Ex.D.28 and also having considered the material available on record the issue between the parties with regard to the Ex.P.4 which plaintiffs relies upon and defendants relies upon the document Ex.D.28. Hence, the Appellate Court having considered the document of Ex.P.4 discussed in paragraph No.15 that Ex.P.4 suit land was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father Muniyappa and his name was entered and continued in RTC right from the year 1993, 1994 till the year 2004, 2005 as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.13. No doubt the defendants have produced Panchayat Parikath as per Ex.D.2 and also taken note of Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.8 as well as Ex.D.19 to Ex.D.22, besides that they have also produced certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner that is as per Ex.D.23 to Ex.D.27 and apart from that document Ex.D.28 also relied upon regarding cancellation of the grant and in detail discussed the same in paragraph No.16 and comes to the conclusion that the document of Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 nothing is found when the grant was cancelled and also comes to the conclusion that competent person to speak on Ex.P.4 which the plaintiff relies upon and Ex.D.28 also which the defendants relies upon and revenue officials who is well acquainted with those documents to be examined before the Trial Court. Hence, comes to the conclusion that only on the basis of ambiguous marks, rights of the parties cannot be decided, unless competent witness is examined to speak on those two documents and therefore comes to the conclusion that those documents are relied upon without proving of those documents it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and hence directed the parties to examine the competent persons to give evidence on Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 and matter is remanded to the Trial Court.

3. The counsel appearing for the appellants