The First Appellate Court must comply with procedural mandates, ensuring proper framing of points and evidence assessment, or its decisions can be invalidated.

JUDGMENT :

(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2014, passed in R.A.No.25/2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chennapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff.

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

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for declaration to declare that he is the owner of the suit schedule property bearing katha No.(157/A) 175/A, and sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property.

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property and adjacent to the northern side of the suit schedule property totally measuring 24 X 96 feet, a house property attached with a backyard measuring 25 X 58 feet originally belonging to one Sri S.L.Srikantaiah, who is none other than the grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendant. Late Srikantaiah had three sons by the names Sri Lingappaiah, Sri Parameshwaraiah and Sri Gundurao, and the plaintiff is the son of Lingappaiah and the defendant is his elder sister of him. It is stated that Srikantaiah and Parameshwariah relinquished their right, title or interest over the suit property, in favour of Lingappaiah and Gundurao, and the plaintiff by virtue of the relinquishment, Lingappaiah and Gundurao became the absolute owners of the said house property. The plaintiff’s father had got a half share in the house property measuring 12 ½ feet x 96 feet under a partition affected more than 35 years ago between Lingappaiah and Gundurao and the paluparikath was executed on 26.04.1993. The defendant had purchased the adjacent portion of the said property under a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1995 from Gundurao and in possession to the extent of 12 ½ X 96 feet in the house property. The deed schedule property measures 17 x 96 feet instead of 12½ x 96 feet. Even though the said Gundurao had no right or authority to sell more than 12 ½ X 96 feet in favour of the defendant. The defendant has not acquired any right, title or interest by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.01.1995. It is contended that the plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.187/1997 against the defendant for permanent injunction, contending that he is the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the panchayath paluparikath dated 26.04.1993. It is contended that the defendant is making an attempt to demolish the common wall. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suits.

3.2. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit, and it is contended that the total extent of the house was divided among three sons of Sri S.L.Srikanthaiah, measuring 8 ft x 96 ft, 8½ ft x 96 ft and 8½ ft x 96 ft respectively, between Sri Lingappaiah, Sri Parameshwaraiah and Sri Gundurao. Subsequent to partition, Sri Parameshwaraiah executed a relinquishment deed in favour of younger brother, Sri Gundurao to the extent of 8½ ft x 96 ft represented by his minor guardian Smt. Rangalakshmamma. Accordingly, the said Sri Gundurao became the owner of the total extent, measuring 17 ft x 96 ft and he sold the said property in favour of the defendant vide sale deed dated 19.01.1995. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the suits.

3.3. The trial Court clubbed both the suits i.e., in O.S.No.512/2000 and O.S.No.187/1997.

3.4. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues:

Issues in O.S.No.512/2000:

1) Does the plaintiff prove that he is the lawful owner with respect to suit schedule property?

2) Does the plaintiff further prove that the sale deed dated 19.01.1