The appellate court is mandated to provide reasoned findings and reassess evidence independently, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2013 passed in R.A.No.22/2003 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Madhugiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the legal heirs of the defendants.

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

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are situated at Rayavara village in Sy.No.170/2.B6 measuring 30 guntas, out of which 15 guntas and the boundaries are specified and another item of property is situated in Sy.No.170/2.B3 measuring 5 guntas. The suit schedule properties belong to the plaintiff and he had purchased the same from defendant no.1 under a registered sale date dated 16.08.1994 for valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that defendant no.2 has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties and defendant no.2 is not in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant no.2 is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendants did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

4. Defendant no.2 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule properties from defendant no.1 under the alleged sale deed and it is denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that defendant no.2 inherited the suit schedule properties from one Venkataravanappa and further, the said Venkataravanappa, out of love and affection gifted the suit properties in favour of defendant no.2 and delivered the possession of the same. Since 1981 and 1974 respectively, defendant no.2 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is contended that defendant no.1 had suffered a decree in respect of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.175/1994 on the file of this court and it was declared that defendant no.2 is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant no.2.

5. Defendant no.1 filed a separate written statement. Wherein defendant no.1 supported the case of the plaintiff and pray to decree the suit as prayed for, in the plaint.

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

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties exclusively belonged to the first defendant?

3. Whether the second defendant proves that the suit schedule properties were gifted by her father Venkataravanappa?

4. Whether the second defendant proves that the first defendant is living with her original husban