BY SRI v. ANAND
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1535 OF 2016 (INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1534 OF 2016 IN RSA No. 1535/2016 BETWEEN: SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT VEERAMMA W/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 (BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.84/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2007 PASSED IN OS NO.289/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JMFC., JUDGE DODDABALLAPUR. (JR.DN.) AND IN RSA NO. 1534/2016 BETWEEN: SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANT AND: SMT VEERAMMA W/O SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O KONAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 04.07.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 83/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 03.11.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.301/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DVN.) AND J.M.F.C., DODDABALLAPURA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT RSA No.1535/2016 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2016, passed in R.A.No.84/2007 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, and the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.289/2005, by the learned Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Doddaballapur. RSA No.1534/2016 is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2016, passed in R.A.No.83/2007 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, and the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.301/2005, by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 the learned Principal Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, Doddaballapur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RSA
Legal Reasoning
No.1535/2016, the appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. In RSA No.1534/2016, the appellant was defendant No.2, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: In both the appeals, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property regarding the land bearing Sy.No.87/9 measuring 28 guntas of Konaghatta village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballupura taluk. 3.1. In both the suits, It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 suit schedule property, the khata stands in the plaintiff’s name, and the same was acquired by Panchayath parikath, took place between the plaintiff, her sister Narayanamma, and the father, Yellappa on 14.10.1985. After partition, all the revenue records stood in the plaintiff’s name. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is in no way concerned with the suit-schedule property; he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit- schedule property and trying to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for perpetual injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suits. 3.2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property at any time. It is contended that Yellappa (arrayed as defendant No.1 in O.S.No.301/2005) owned the suit schedule property. He offered to sell the same to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.45,000/- on 08.09.1994. The defendant paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- in part performance of the contract. Yellappa delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. It is contended that Yellappa did not perform his part of the contract. 3.3. It is contended that defendant No.1 in O.S.No.301/2005 /Yellappa did not perform his part of the contract. The defendant in O.S.No.289/2005 and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.301/2005, i.e., Krishnappa filed a suit in O.S.No.459/1995 against Yellappa for the specific performance of a contract. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 28.02.2001. The plaintiff, colluding with said Yellappa, concocted the documents, and filed the present suit. It is contended that Yellappa, during his lifetime, filed a Miscellaneous case No.1/2005 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. It is contended that the suit filed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the suits. 3.4. The plaint and written statement averments in both suits are on same line. 3.5. In O.S.No.289/2005, the Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendant? 3) What order or decree? 3.6. In O.S.No.301/2005, 16, the Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that in view of the paluparikath dated 14.10.85, she became the absolute owner of the suit property and in peaceful possession of the same? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are interfering with her peaceful possession over the suit property? 3) What order and decree? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 3.7. In O.S.No.289/2005, the plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3, and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to 4. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2, and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issues Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issues No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs, and the defendant, his men, agents or anybody claiming under him are restrained permanently from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property vide judgment dated 05.11.2007. 3.8. In O.S.No.301/2005, the plaintiff to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, and marked four documents as Exs.P1 to 4. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, examined one - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 witness as DW.2 and marked one document as Ex.D1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issues Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issues No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs, and the defendants, their men, agents or anybody claiming under him are restrained permanently from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property vide judgment dated 03.11.2007. 3.9. The defendant in O.S.No.289/2005 and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.301/2005, i.e., the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeals in R.A.No.84/2007 and R.A.No.83/2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura. 3.10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties in both the appeals, framed the following points for consideration: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 1) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the respondent is having share in the suit schedule property, so she is in lawful possession and enjoyment is improper and incorrect? 2) Whether the impugned the judgment and decree passed by is trial Court is pleadings and evidence on record erroneous, capricious, call for interference by this Court? 3) What order? 3.11. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties, re-assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals, and the judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.289/2005, and O.S.No.301/2005, respectively, were confirmed. The defendant i.e., Krishnappa, the appellant, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, filed these Regular Second Appeals.
Legal Reasoning
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant, and the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in both the appeals. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 5. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that Yellappa was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. He agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant by executing a sale agreement. He submits that Yellappa did not perform his part of the contract. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.459/1995, and the said suit was decreed. During Yellappa’s lifetime, he filed a Miscellaneous petition to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. Yellappa withdrew the Miscellaneous petition. He submits that in part performance of a contract, Yellappa delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. He submits that, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/95 has attained finality. He submits that the Courts below did not consider the said aspect, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. He further submits that Yellappa aggrieved by the revenue entries in the plaintiff’s name, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 allowed the appeal, and set aside the entries in the plaintiff’s name. The plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. He submits that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeals. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that as of the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. He submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not challenged. He submits that both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. He also submits that the defendant has not executed the decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 7. In RSA No.1535/2016, the appellant and respondent have filed the applications I.A.No.1/2021, I.A.No.1/2022, I.A.No.1/2025, and I.A.No.2/2025, respectively, for the production of an additional evidence, and accordingly prays to allow the applications. 8. This Court, on 10.11.2022, admitted the appeals on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the trial Court and the first Appellate Court are justified in holding that decree in O.S.No.459/1995 for relief of specific performance of the contract in favour of the present appellant is not binding against the original owner Yellappa?” 9. This Court, on 27.03.2025, reframed the following additional substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to allow the application for production of additional evidence? 2. Whether the respondent has made out a ground to allow the application for production of additional evidence? - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in both the appeals. 11. Reg. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NO.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, and Khata stands in the plaintiff’s name. The same was acquired by Panchayat Parikath, which took place between the plaintiff, her sister Narayanamma and Yellappa on 14.10.1985, and defendant/ defendant No.2 in both the suits is no way concerned with the suit schedule property; he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. In both appeals, the plaintiff, to prove her possession, produced the documents marked at Ex.P1 to Ex.P.4. Ex.P1 is the RTC extract of the suit land bearing No.87/9. Ex.P2 is the mutation register extract. Ex.P3 is the Panchayath Parikath. Ex.P3 (a to f) are the signatures of PW1, witnesses and scribe. Ex.P4 is the tax-paid receipt. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 12. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW1 that Yellappa executed a sale agreement in favour of the defendant, and Yellappa did not perform his part of the contract. The defendant filed a suit against Yellappa for the specific performance of a contract in O.S.No.459/1995. The said suit was decreed in favour of the defendant. It is also suggested that, in part performance of the contract, Yellappa delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under part performance of the contract. PW.1 denied the said suggestions. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3, who have deposed in the same terms of PW.1. 13. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and he has deposed that Yellappa executed a sale agreement in favour of the defendant, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The defendant has filed the suit in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 O.S.No.459/1995 against Yellappa for relief of specific performance of a Contract. The suit was decreed on 28.02.2001. Yellappa filed Misc. petition 1/2005 seeking to set aside exparte decree passed against him. The defendant is in possession of the suit property. The defendant also examined a witness as DW.2, he deposed that the defendant possess the suit property. The defendant to prove his defense, produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of a decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. 14. Though the plaintiff and defendant produced the documents to disclose that both are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property, during the pendency of the proceedings, the revenue authorities passed an order to delete the name of the plaintiff from the revenue records, and the said order was challenged before the District Commissioner in the revision petition. The District Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 The order passed by the District Commissioner has attained finality. 15. The records produced by the plaintiff have no evidentiary value in the eyes of the law in view of the order passed by the District Commissioner in the Revision Petition, and Yellappa did not challenge the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. The decree passed in the above-said suit has attained finality, and the same is against Yellappa. In view of the above discussions, I answer Substantial Question No.1 in the negative. 16. Reg. Substantial Question No.2: IA.No.1/2021, I.A.No.1/2022, and IA.No.2/2025 are filed for the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC, by the defendant. In support of an application filed an affidavit stating that the plaintiff has filed a suit for relief of permanent injunction regarding the land bearing survey No.87/9 measuring 28 guntas situated at Konaghatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 17. It is stated that, the defendant’s case is that, the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further, the original owner, Yellappa had offered the suit property for sale and the defendant agreed to purchase the said property for a total consideration of Rs.45,000/- and the defendant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards an advance sale consideration amount and it was agreed that balance sale consideration amount to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Yellappa executed the sale agreement on 08.09.1994. In the part performance of a contract, Yellappa delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. Yellappa did not perform his part of the contract. The defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.459/1995 for relief of specific performance of the contract, and the said suit was decreed in favour of the defendant. Yellappa filed a suit in Miscellaneous petition No.1/2005 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2001 passed - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 in O.S.No.459/1995. The said Miscellaneous petition was dismissed as not pressed. 18. It is stated that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property by the sale agreement dated 08.09.1994. The defendant has produced the sale agreement dated 08.09.1994 and the entire order sheet in Misc. Petition No.1/2005. The said documents could not be produced despite due diligence. The said document owe to the root of the case. It is stated that the said document is relevant for adjudicating the dispute. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the applications. 19. The plaintiff filed the objections to the said application, denying the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application. It is stated that the decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995 is an exparte decree and Yellappa filed a Miscellaneous petition No.1/2005. In the said Misc. petition 1/2005, he has contended that, he fell down from the tree and sustained a fracture, due to which - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 he could not contact his counsel, and file a written statement. 20. It is stated that Yellappa did not receive any advance sale consideration amount from the defendant, and the alleged agreement is a fabricated and forged document. It is stated that the defendant has not produced the alleged sale agreement before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the application. 21. It is not in dispute that the defendant filed a suit against Yellappa in O.S.No.459/1995 for relief of specific performance of the contract on the ground that Yellappa agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.45,000/- and accordingly, the defendant paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Yellappa executed a sale agreement on 08.09.1994. In part performance of a contract, Yellappa delivered the possession of suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The defendant claims to be in - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in part performance of a contract. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.459/1995 against Yellappa for relief of the specific performance of a contract. The trial Court issued the summons to the Yellappa. Despite service of summons, Yellappa did not appear before the Trial Court in the said suit. The trial Court placed Yellappa exparte, recorded the evidence of the defendant, and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 28.02.2001. Though, Yellappa filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc. petition No.1/2005, for setting aside the exparte decree, the miscellaneous petition was dismissed as not pressed, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995 attained the finality. Despite due diligence, the defendant could not produce the said documents before the Trial Court. Both the defendant and plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property as the defendant could not produce the sale agreement executed by Yellappa in favour of the defendant, and the order sheet in Misc. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 petition No.01/2005. The said documents are relevant for the parties to adjudicate the dispute. 22. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits no objection to allow IA.No.1/2022. Similarly, the defendant has filed applications in I.A.No.1/2021 and I.A.No.2/2025, for the production of additional evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits no objection to allow the said applications. In view of the above discussions, I answer Substantial Question of Law No.2 in the affirmative. 23. Reg.Substantial Question No.3: The plaintiff filed an application for the production of additional evidence in IA.No.1/2025, seeking the production of additional evidence. In support of an application, the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that Yellappa filed Miscellaneous petition No.1/2005 challenging an exparte judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. It is stated in the Miscellaneous petition that Yellappa has not executed the sale agreement in - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 favour of the defendant, has not given the possession, and it was a created document. It is stated that the defendant, taking undue advantage of the drinking habit of Yellappa, got a thumb impression on Vakalathnama and, filed NOC vakalath on 10.06.2008 along with a memo for not pressing, and succeeded in getting dismissed the miscellaneous petition. It is stated that, the defendant has filed a memo without the consent of yellappa. It is also stated that, though the defendant had obtained a decree of the Specific Performance of Contract, the defendant did not execute the decree passed in O.S.No.459/1995. Yellappa expired on 22.10.2010. It is also stated that, the plaintiff’s son lodged the complaint in the jurisdictional police station, and the police have registered a criminal case against the defendant, and filed the charge sheet. It is stated that, these facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the plaintiff has obtained the documents recently. The said documents owe to the root of the case to establish the plaintiff’s peaceful - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prays to allow the application. 24. Learned counsel for the defendant submits no objection to allow IA.No.1/2025. 25. Both counsels, submit that the matter may be remitted to the First Appellate Court, allowing the parties to lead their evidence on the additional evidence. The defendant submitted no objection to allow the application, and the said records owe to the root of the case, so the Court can pass the appropriate judgment. In view of the above discussion, I answer Substantial question No.3 in the affirmative. 26. As this Court allowed the applications filed by the respective parties for the production of additional evidence, the matter requires reconsideration by the First Appellate Court. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 27. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER 1. The Regular Second Appeals are allowed. 2. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2007 and R.A.No.83/2007 on the file of learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District dated 04.07.2016 are set aside. 3. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2021, IA.No.1/2022, IA.No.1/2025, IA.No.2/2025 filed by the respective parties are allowed. 4. The documents produced by the parties are taken on record. 5. The appeals are restored. 6. The First Appellate Court is directed to provide an opportunity to lead evidence on additional evidence, and thereafter pass appropriate judgment in accordance with law. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:13051 RSA No. 1535 of 2016 C/W RSA No. 1534 of 2016 7. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 07.07.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the First Appellate Court. 8. The office is directed to transmit the records to the First Appellate Court. 9. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals independently without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment. 10. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS, RCK