The appellate court must independently assess evidence and frame issues as per procedural mandates, ensuring decisions are clear and reasoned, to avoid arbitrary judgments.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2015 passed in R.A.No.10021/2014 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondents were the plaintiffs.

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

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of Sri Munivenkatappa, who is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 4. He died intestate on 20.10.1961 leaving behind the plaintiffs. The grant certificate was issued on 17.03.1964 in the name of the mother of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 by name Smt. Muniyamma. The plaintiffs and their mother have inherited the suit property from Munivenkatappa. The plaintiffs and Muniyamma had continued in actual and physical possession of the suit schedule property. The mother of the plaintiffs died leaving behind them. It is contended that the defendant is the stranger to the suit property and the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is contended that on 12.12.2007, the plaintiffs' moved the revenue authorities for change of the revenue records of the suit schedule property from the name of Munivenkatappa to their names. At that time, the defendant raised a dispute making a false claim over the suit schedule property. The said dispute was registered by the revenue authorities and the said dispute is still pending. Hence, they denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. Accordingly, pray to decree the suit.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also contended that the suit is hopelessly barred by time and it is contended that the suit property was granted by Government as darkasth land in favour of Smt. Muniyamma and the said property was transferred in the name of Muniyamma. Muniyamma had raised a loan from the Vyavasaya Seva Sahakar Sangha and she was unable to repay the said loan. The said Sangha held a public auction on 07.08.1979 regarding the suit schedule property. In the said auction, the father of the defendant by name Doddanarasimhaiah was one of the bidders and he paid 15% of the bid amount to the Sangha. The Sangha put the father of the defendant in actual and physical possession of the suit property. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

i. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

ii. Whether the defendant proves that they are purchased suit schedule property under public action in the year 1979?

iii. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?

iv. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them?

v. What order or decree?

7. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, Mohan Kumar was examined as PW.1, and marked 10 docu