The trial court must assign reasons for its decision per Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC, failing which its judgment may be deemed arbitrary and require reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular First Appeal and Cross objection arise out of the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.190/2014 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RFA No. 100056/2017, Appellant No.1 was defendant No.3, appellant No.2 is the legal representative of defendant No.4, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.5 to 6 were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In RFA CROB 100004/2019, the Cross Objector was Defendant No. 2, Respondents No. 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, and the other respondents were the other defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal, and the Cross Objection are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their 4/6^th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Channabasappa was the original propositus. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit schedule property originally belonged to Shringeri Math. The grandfather of the plaintiffs and many others were cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.43 as the tenants. Channabasappa-the Plaintiffs’ grandfather was cultivating 50 acres of the land in Sy.No.43/P45, and the name of Defendant No. 1’s name was mutated to the said land as an occupant. After the demise of the plaintiffs’ grandfather, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued to cultivate the suit land as tenants. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 filed Form No.7 for the grant of occupancy rights regarding the suit schedule property. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the extent of 40 acres of the said land vide order dated 29.10.1987. Defendant No.1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted the occupancy rights to an extent of 50 acres of the land in suit schedule property. Thereafter, Defendant No.1, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between them. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule property is in their possession and enjoyment. Defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 for consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-, and defendant No.3 paid Rs.6,00,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- would be paid on or before 15.03.2010. However, defendant No.3 has not paid the balance sale consideration amount. It is also contended that there is a condition in the order passed by the Land Tribunal regarding non-alienation of the suit property for a period of 15 years. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Accordi