The appellate court upheld that a plaintiff must prove their case through their own evidence, and cannot rely solely on undermining the defendant's claim, reaffirming the procedural standards under the CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sathi Kumar Sukumarakurup, J.

Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.11 of 2006 dated 03.01.2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.102 of 1999 dated 25.04.2006 by the learned District Munsif, Hosur.

2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is the Plaintiff before the learned District Munsif, erstwhile Hosur District now Krishnagiri District. The suit was resisted by Defendant. After full trial, by judgment dated 25.04.2006, the learned District Munsif, Hosur decreed the suit. Aggrieved the Defendants had preferred Appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2006 before the learned Sub Judge, Hosur.

3. The learned Sub Judge, Hosur after hearing both the parties by judgment dated 03.01.2008 allowed the Appeal in A.S.No.11 of 2006 thereby set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Hosur in O.S.No.102 of 1999 by dismissing the suit.

4. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 1999 before the learned District Munsif, Hosur and the Respondent in A.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sub Judge had preferred this Second Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge Hosur in A.S.No.11 of 2006 and to restore the decree in favour of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.102 of 1999.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned District Munsif, Hosur in Para 9 to 12. Also, he invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the learned first Appellate Judge, wherein it is held as follows,

and the grounds raised by the Plaintiff as Appellant in this Second Appeal are as follows:

i) The decree and judgment passed by the Sub-Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of this case. ii) The Appellate Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the Appellant.

iii) The Appellate Court erred in framing new issues at the Appellate Court, without giving notice to the Appellant herein under the procedure of C.P.C.

iv) The Appellate Court ought not to have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of the respondents herein.

v) The Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the Appeal suit and confirm the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the Second Appeal that the Plaintiff had sought declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Defendant had influenced Revenue Officials to include the name of the Defendants' father in the Patta granted to the Plaintiff in the Gramanatham during UDR period which had caused the cause of action for filing the suit.

7. Also the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the first Appellate Court had raised additional issues and had not issued notice regarding additional issues to the Respondent in the Appeal, the Plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, the judgment of the learned first Appellate Judge discussing the additional issues raised by him had caused prejudice and caused miscarriage of justice to the Respondents. The Plaintiff who was having a decree in his favour, the learned first Appellate Judge had reversed the finding by raising additional issues and without notice to the Respondent/Plaintiff in the first Appeal. Therefore, based on the ground 'C' in the Second Appeal, the judgment of the learned first Appellate Judge is to be set aside.

8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the Respondent is the Defendant in O.S.No.102 of 1999. On 24.10.1984 during the UDR-survey, the Revenue Officials had measured the properties and issued patta. At that time, the Plaintiffs' father misrepresented the Revenue Officials and inclu