Failure to frame pertinent issues regarding the plaintiff's status as heir impaired the judicial process, necessitating remand for proper adjudication.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013, passed in R.A.No.24/2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hunsur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011, passed in O.S.No.126/2005 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), H.D.Kote.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff.

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

Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to Government and it was granted in favour of his father by name Nagaiah, S/o Nagaiah who was also resident of the said village. The plaintiff's father was in uninterrupted possession till 17.01.1971. On 18.01.1971, he sold the said land in favour of Pashupathi Gounder. According to the plaintiff, original grantee Nagaiah belonged to Bovi community and it is recognized under the Scheduled Castes. The plaintiff's father approached the Assistant Commissioner under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application and the sale transaction that took place in favour of Pashupathi Gounder on 18.01.1971, stood cancelled and the land vested with plaintiff's father. On account of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the land was restored in favour of father of plaintiff and he was enjoying the suit schedule property. After his demise, plaintiff came in possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant made an attempt to obstruct the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Plaintiff approached the police by giving complaint, but police gave an endorsement stating that the issue involved is of civil in nature and directed the plaintiff to approach civil Court. Thereby cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that plaintiff is not the son of Nagaiah, but he is the son of one Ramaiah and the said fact is evident from the demand register abstract placed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff's wife by name Yashodamma had given the application before the Tahsildar, H.D.Kote stating that the schedule property belongs to them as it was sold by Nagaiah to Pashupati Gounder and she sought for restoration of the property. The Village Accountant and the Revenue Inspector carried out inspection and submitted a report. It is contended that the enquiry report revealed that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of inspection. On these grounds sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged interference by the defendant?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction order as prayed for?

4) What order or decree?

6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and in order to prove possession, examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. In rebuttal, defendant examined himself as DW-1 an