The Appellate Court must adhere to procedural requirements and provide comprehensive reasoning in its judgments, especially regarding issues of property ownership and applicable religious laws.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2013, passed in R.A.No.87/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Hunsur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, appellant No.3 was defendant No.4, and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of a 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one C.Perumal of Hunsur. He had a daughter by name Papamma and a son named Jayaraj. The suit schedule property fell to the share of Jayaraj and other properties were allotted to Papamma. Jayaraj died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Jayaraj and his wife Rajamma are Indian Christians and are governed by Indian Succession Act, 1925. Plaintiff Nos.1, 2, one Vittal and defendant No.4 are the children of Jayaraj. Said Vittal died leaving behind his wife by name Sumithra and the children by name Jaramu and somu i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the katha of the property stands in the name C.Perumal i.e., the father of Jayaraj. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. Therefore, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Hence, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, except for the fact that C.Perumal was the original owner of the suit schedule property and the relationship between the parties. It is denied that subsequent to the death of Perumal, Smt. Papamma and Jayaraj became the absolute owners of the suit property. During the lifetime of their father, he had given the suit property to the husband of defendant No.1 H.J.Kumar @ Vittala Shanthakumar and was asked him to manage the family and to perform the marriage of all their children. The husband of defendant No.1 spent Rs.6,00,000/- for performing the marriage of all his brothers and sisters. He has also renovated the existing house by spending Rs.1,00,000/- and has paid taxes of about Rs.60,000/-. Hence, it is contended that subsequent to the death of Kumar, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are enjoying the suit property. The plaintiffs, inspite of knowing that defendant No.1 is a widow, have filed this false suit with an intention to harass her. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they are in joint possession?

2) Whether the defendants prove that Papamma and Jayaraju were given the suit schedule property to the husband of 1^st defendant under oral agreement and the defendants are in exclusive possession of the same?

3) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit?

4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule property?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?

6) What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 01 document as Ex.P1. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2 and marked 01 document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the nega