The appellate court must evaluate evidence thoroughly and allow additional documents if essential for addressing the dispute, not solely based on procedural grounds.

ORDER :

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in O.S.No.56/2018 (Old No.363/2014), which was confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2022 passed in R.A.No.45/2022 by the Family Court, Haveri (for short, ‘the first appellate Court’).

2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that appellants have filed the suit for declaration in respect of suit properties and consequential injunction restraining defendants from forming any road or widening of the road and not to interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties i.e., land bearing Sy.No.8/2 measuring 6 acre 22 gunta and Sy.No.6/1 measuring 3 acre 12 gunta, Sy.No.6/2, measuring 4 acre 30 gunta belong to the appellants herein, who are enjoying the said properties as the tenants in common. They have also got surveyed the said properties by filing the necessary application before the survey authorities and survey authorities by identifying the properties of the appellants, fixed the boundaries and prepared the sketch. The said properties are the absolute properties of the appellants and the same have not at all been acquired by the Government at any point of time. However, respondent authorities/defendants without any manner of right and without initiating any acquisition proceedings have tried to form new road in the guise of the straightening of the road, even though there is no such road and the lands belonging to the appellants having not acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, have tried to form the road in the said properties that too in the middle of the lands and thereby they have caused loss to the appellants. The said action of the respondent/defendants authorities are wholly illegal and without any manner of right and as such, the appellants having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have filed the suit in O.S.No.363/2014 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Hanagal which was later renumbered as O.S.No.56/2018.

4. In the said suit, on the notice being served to the defendants, they have tendered their appearance and the 3^rd defendant filed his written statement which was adopted by other defendants. In the written statement filed by the 3^rd defendant, he has denied all the plaint averments and contended that the road situated on the southern side of the appellant/plaintiffs’ properties is in existence from several years which was formed about 40 years back and is being used by the public. It is further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction without seeking for consequential relief of possession, is not maintainable in law. As per the Government, project No.5054-03-337-0-18, the Hosa Aladakatti -Honkana Road, in the Hanagal Taluk, the road in question was in a damaged condition and they are intending to develop the road and they have contended that the survey sketch prepared by the survey authorities are not binding on them and the plaintiffs have managed to get the survey report only to suit their convenience and on these grounds they sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed eight issues. To substantiate the case of plaintiffs, the 2^nd plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.16. On closure of plaintiffs’ side evidence, defendant No.3 examined himself as D.W.1 and seven documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7.

6. Having hea