- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.996 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. P.R. PRAMILA W/O PANDANA RAMESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS KAMANGONDANAHALLI POST: JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560013. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER KOCHANA N. SRINIVAS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH K. ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.G. PREMA W/O K.M. GANESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O MARAGODU VILLAGE AND POST - 571 252 MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT. 2. SMT. M. PARVATHI DEVAIAH W/O LATE M.G. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 7/27/1 RACE VIEW COLLEGE ROAD MADIKERI - 571 201. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 3. SMT. POONAM DEVAIAH D/O LATE M.D. DEVAIAH C/O MR. M. SAMRATH GANAPATHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NEXT TO JOLLY RESIDENCY NEAR SIDDI VINAYAKA TEMPLE VESU SURATH - 395 007. 4. SMT. JASWANTHI DEVAIAH D/O LATE M.G. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS C/O VENKATESH NADA GOWDA NO.16, SHREYHAS RESIDENCY D-3, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS DOLLARS COLONY RMV 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560094. 5. SMT. C.B. KAVERAMMA W/O M. VASUDEVAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 6. SRI. M.V. VASUDEVAN S/O SRI. M. SHANKARAN EZHYTHCHAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS EZHYTHICHAN RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.110, 10TH CROSS FIRST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR M.C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; R2, R4 TO R6 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 26.05.2023 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 R.A.NO.25/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.88/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN) MADIKERI. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2016 in R.A.No.25/2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2009 in O.S.No.88/1995 on the file of Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) Madikeri, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 3. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal are that, the plaintiff claims to be a owner of the suit schedule property. It is stated that, originally, the land in question belonged to one Biddanda Boppayya, resident of Kattemadu Village. It is further stated that, as per the registered sale deed dated 01.06.1956, portion of the land bearing Sy.No.227 measuring 8.26 acres along with land bearing Sy.No.226/1 measuring 24.92 acres were purchased by four persons namely, K.S. Ganapathy, C.K. Ponnappa, K.K. Muthappa and Sannaiah from the said Biddanda Boppayya. After purchasing the same, the aforementioned four purchasers were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that the aforesaid four purchasers have orally divided the above properties and got an area of approximately 8.214 acres each and C.K.Ponnappa (one of the purchasers) got an area of 1.50 acres in Sy. No.227. It is also stated that the said C.K.Ponnappa had sold the suit schedule property in favour of Kochana Bopaiah (father of the plaintiff) as per the registered sale deed dated 10.03.1978. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 4. It is further stated that, towards the southern side of the land bearing Sy.No.227 measuring to an extent of 1.50 acres, land bearing Sy.No.131/2 of Hoskeri village, which belonged to Kochana Bopaiah, was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff and as such the suit schedule property in the southern side was bifurcated by a Village boundary and the house of the plaintiff's father in Sy. No.131/2 of Hoskeri village. It is also stated that, a connecting road was situated leading to link road passed on the northern side of the suit schedule property and it passes through the eastern side of the suit schedule property and therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property and Sy.No.131/2, which is standing in the name of the mother of the plaintiff, formed one compact block. It is also stated that, towards the south western portion of Sy.No.227 of the suit schedule property, abutting the village boundary of Hoskeri village and remaining extent of 6.76 acres in Sy No.227 of Maragodu Village was in possession of one K.S. Ganapathy, (one of the joint purchasers along with C.K. Ponnappa). The said K.S. Ganapathy died on 23.06.1973. After the death of the said K.S. Ganapathy, his legal heirs became owners of the aforementioned land. It is also stated that, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 legal representatives of K.S. Ganapathy have sold 7 acres of the land in question instead of 6.76 acres in favour of M.G.Devaiah(defendant No.2), as per the registered sale deed dated 07.05.1990 and therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiff that, defendant No.2 had purchased an extent of 6.76 acres in Sy.No.227 and not the exact extent of 7 acres as mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 07.05.1990. 5. It is also stated by the plaintiff that after the demarcation of the property by the plaintiff’s father, the father of the plaintiff was put into possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and after the death of her father, the plaintiff being only legal heir, is in possession of the same and after her marriage, the suit schedule property is being looked after by one Sri. Kochana N.Srinivasa (Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff). It is also stated that since the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is in cultivation of land in question, and by taking advantage of the same, defendant No.1 along with her husband, have interfered with the suit schedule property based on the registered sale deed dated 21.12.1990 said to have been executed by one Kedambadi Muthappa(son of K.S. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 Ganapathy) in favour of defendant No.1, the plaintiff has sought for relief in the suit. 6. It is also stated in the plaint that, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 21.12.1990 executed by the son of K.S. Ganapathy in favour of defendant No.1 shows an extent of 1.26 acres in respect of the entire property carved out in Sy.No.227 measuring 8.26 acres and not for the area of the land in question belonging to the defendants and same has resulted in discrepancy in the boundaries of the suit schedule property. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiff that, there is a mistake in the boundary in the registered sale deed dated 10.03.1978 and same was not noticed or rectified by the father of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.88/1995, seeking relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property to an extent of 1.50 acres of land, out of 8.26 acres in Sy.No.227 of Hoskeri village, inter alia, sought for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The plaint was amended during pendency of the suit and the plaintiff has sought for alternative - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 relief to direct defendant No.1 to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property along with mesne profits. 7. After service of summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and contested the matter on merits by filing the written statement. It is the case of defendant No.1 that C.K. Ponappa, K.S. Ganapathy and other two persons have purchased the land measuring to an extent of 8.26 acres in Sy.No.227 and land measuring to an extent of 24.92 acres in Sy.No.226/1, as per the registered sale deed said to have been executed by the original owner of the land -Biddanda Boppayya. It is also admitted that the aforementioned four purchasers have entered into an oral partition, however, defendant No.1 contended that, the entire area in Sy.No.227 was allotted to the share of K.S. Ganapathy and after the death of K.S. Ganapathy, the legal heirs of K.S. Ganapathy have succeeded to the estate of late K.S.Ganapathy. It is also stated that, there was a family settlement in the family of K.S. Ganapathy and as such, total extent of 8.26 acres in Maragodu property in Sy.No. 227 was allotted to share of K.G. Muthappa(second son of K.S. Ganapathy). It is also stated that, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 the mutation was effected in the name of K.G. Muthappa in terms of the family settlement, which had taken place in the family of the legal representatives of K.S.Ganapathy. 8. It is the specific case of defendant No.1 that, C.K. Ponnappa had never become exclusive owner of the suit schedule property at any point of time and therefore, the sale deed dated 10.03.1978 executed by C.K. Ponnappa in favour of the Kochana Bopaiah (father of plaintiff) is void ab initio and therefore, it is the contention of defendant No.1 that the claim made by the plaintiff is based on a void document and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. Defendant No.2, though entered appearance, however, has not contested the matter by filing written statement. 10. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and sought for alternative relief of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement and took up a specific plea that, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 11. The Trial Court, based on pleadings of record, has formulated the issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and 12 documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff as Exs.P1 to P12(a). Defendants have examined seven witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 7 and produced 33 documents which were marked as Exs.D1 to D33. 12. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed R.A.No.25/2009 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re-considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2016 allowed the appeal, consequently, set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2009 in O.S.No.88/1995. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 13. This Court by order dated 29.06.2016, formulated the following substantial questions: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 "(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court without considering the material document - registered sale deed dated 10.3.1978 when the original owner has not at all challenged the same? (2) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court on the basis of the subsequent sale deed Ex.P6 dated 29.12.1990 in the absence of any challenge or setting aside the earlier sale deed? (3) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in holding that the registered sale deed should contain the signature of the purchaser on every page of the documents? (4) Whether the lower Appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the present case? " - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 14. I have heard Sri. Chandranath K. Ariga, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Ravikumar M.C., learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 15. It is argued by Sri. Chandranath K. Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, wherein, the Trial Court after considering the material on record, affirmed the issue Nos.1, 2 and additional Issue No.2 on merits based on oral and documentary evidence and the First Appellate Court without considering the Jamabandi (Ex.P8), as well as the sale deed dated 07.05.1980 (Ex.P5), particularly referring to boundaries, reversed the finding of the Trial Court erroneously and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, by referring to the schedule mentioned in the registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1990 (Ex.D16), it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the schedule to the registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1980 (Ex.P5) is incorrect and further, as there is discrepancy in so far as the schedule to these two sale deeds are concerned, and further by referring to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 the deposition of D.W.3, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as D.W.3 admitted with regard to incorrect schedule mentioned in the registered Sale Deed at Ex.P5, and as such, sought for interference of this Court. 16. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to evidence of D.W.6 who has sold the property in favour of the plaintiff, in which, the D.W.6 admitted about the discrepancy in the registered Sale Deed mentioned above, particularly, with regard to Ex.D1 and accordingly, as the said aspect of the evidence was ignored by the First Appellate Court, and as such, sought for setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 17. Referring to the mutation entry made in Ex.D2, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, no notice was issued to the aggrieved parties and further it was pleaded that, the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was cultivating the land in question who in turn looking after other lands situated adjacent to the suit schedule property and therefore, it is argued that the discrepancy in the sale deed particularly the boundaries would not affect the right of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 plaintiff, seeking declaration in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore, it is contended that, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires interference by this Court. By referring to the evidence of P.W.1, inter alia, by referring to Ex.P5 - registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1980 executed by the wife and sons of late K.S. Ganapathy, by which the entire suit property got under the oral partition which was sold in favour of Sri. M.G. Devaiah (defendant No.2) as per the registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1980, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that, after the sale of the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1980, wherein, there was nothing left for the family of K.S. Ganapathy to sell the property in question and therefore, it is argued that the registered Sale Deed dated 21.12.1990 (Ex.P6) is a void document and same cannot be accepted. 18. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that D.W.3 is the son of K.S. Ganapathy. K.S. Ganapathy died on 23.06.1973 and as such, his wife and sons have sold the property on 07.05.1980. D.W.3 in unequivocal - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 terms admits in the cross-examination that the sale made in favour of M.G. Devaiah is, to an extent of 7 acres in Sy.No.227 and also he deposed that no land remaining in the land bearing Sy.No.227 and the said aspect was ignored by the First Appellate Court and as such, sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the examination-in-chief of D.W.6, wherein, D.W.6 has deposed that, apart from the land measuring 8.66 acres in Sy.No.226/1, the D.W.6 did not get any other property to his share and the said statement has been rightly appreciated by the Trial Court, however, the same was ignored by the First Appellate Court and therefore, sought for setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 19. Sri. Chandranath K. Ariga, learned counsel for the appellant, by inviting the attention of the Court to the deposition of D.W.3, argued by referring to the encumbrance certificate produced at Ex.D1, wherein the First Appellate Court has ignored the chronological alienation of the property by the vendors therein and further argued that D.W.3 had the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 knowledge of sale of 1.50 acres of land in Sy.No.227 in favour of Kochana Bopaiah(father of the plaintiff) and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. Further, by referring to I.A.1/2025 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that, perusal of the document annexed to the said application sets forth the details of acquisition of properties by the vendors therein, and therefore, it is submitted that, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant refers to the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of DURAISWAMI REDDI Vs. ANGAPPA REDDI AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1946 MADRAS 140, and contended that, when there is dispute with regard to two registered documents, the earlier document would prevail and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was authorised to depose before the Court and to conduct the proceedings and therefore, it is argued that the First Appellate Court has ignored the findings recorded by the Trial Court with regard to veracity of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 deposition of P.W.1 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. HARTAR SINGH SANGHA reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 and by referring to paragraph 18, it is argued that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff was well aware about the entire aspects of the matter and same was ignored by the First Appellate Court and further erroneously arrived at a conclusion that the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff had no knowledge relating to inter se sale deeds executed by the parties and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 20. Per contra, Sri. Ravikumar M.C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, refers to the genealogical tree of Sri. Biddanda Boppayya and argued that, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that the land to an extent of 1.50 acres in Survey No.227 was allocated to the share of C.K. Ponnappa. He further argued that, after the oral partition taken place during the year 1965, by all the four purchasers of the land as per registered Sale Deed 01.06.1956, the land bearing Survey - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 No.227 measuring 8.26 acres and an area of 0.11 cents in Survey No.226/1 was exclusively allotted in favour of K.S. Ganapathy. It is contended that, each of the purchasers as per the registered Sale Deed dated 01.06.1956 got approximately eight acres and few cents out of total extent of 24.93 acres. By referring to paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the plaintiff admitted in the plaint about the extent of land as an area of about 8.214 acres and therefore, it is the burden on the plaintiff to prove the extent of land allotted in favour of C.K. Ponnappa. Hence, it is contended that the First Appellate Court, after evaluating the entire material on record, rightly set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.88/1995 and therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. 21. Nextly, Sri. Ravikumar M.C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by referring to the General Power of Attorney (Ex.P1) contended that the executant in the said GPA does not describe the schedule to the property deliberately in the GPA and further no source of title is stated in the General Power of Attorney as required under law, and as such, there is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 a serious lacuna in the Power of Attorney and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 22. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by referring to Ex.D2, that the entry in the Mutation Register was made after issuing notice to the concerned and as there was no response or objection by the claimants therein and as such, the revenue authorities rightly entered the name of K.G. Muthappa in the mutation register as per Ex.D5. It is also argued that, since the plaintiff admits about the error in the Sale Deed at Ex.P2, it is open for the plaintiff to rectify the same through appropriate proceedings by executing the Rectification Deed and as such, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 23. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the dispute between the parties being with regard to boundaries of the schedule as described in the respective Sale Deeds, and as such, the test should be to ascertain the complete area which was possessed by C.K. Ponnappa carved out in the entire total property in land bearing Sy.No.227 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 24. In respect of the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, it was argued that the application was filed belatedly and no acceptable reasons have been shown for consideration and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the application. 25. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and perused the records. It is to be noted that, originally, the land bearing Survey No.226/1 measuring 24.93 acres and land bearing Survey No.227 measuring 8.26 acres belonged to one Biddanda Boppayya and as per the registered Sale Deed dated 01.06.1956, four persons namely, K.S. Ganapathy, C.K. Ponnappa, K.K. Muthappa and Sannaiah had purchased the entire extent of land available in land bearing Sy No.226/1 and in Survey No.227. 26. It is also to be noted that, one of the purchasers - C.K. Ponnappa had sold an extent of 1.50 acres in Sy.No.227 and * in favour of Kochana Bopaiah as per registered Sale Deed dated *Deleted vide Court Order dated 04.12.2025. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 10.03.1978. It is the case of the defendants that, the entire area comprised in land bearing Sy.No.227 is 8.26 acres which was allotted in favour of Sri.K.S. Ganapathy and after the demise of Sri. K.S. Ganapathy, partition had effected amongst children of Sri. K.S. Ganapathy and as such, son of Sri. K.S. Ganapathy - Sri. K.G. Muthappa was allotted with 1.26 acres of land and same was sold by K.G. Muthappa in favour of the defendant after alienating 7 acres out of total extent of 8.26 acres in Sy.No.227. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, the Trial Court had given a finding on issue No.1 in the affirmative and additional issue No.1 in the negative. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, the land in question was under cultivation by her GPA holder - P.W.1 and there is discrepancy in mentioning the schedule in the sale deed said to have been purchased by the father of the plaintiff from *C.K. Ponnappa. Taking into consideration that, the finding recorded by the Trial Court, negating the additional issue No.1, the Trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that, the plaintiff has proved that the schedule property sold as per Ex.P2 is similar to the boundary mentioned in the plaint. It is also forthcoming from the finding *Corrected vide Court Order dated 04.12.2025. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 recorded by the Trial Court, wherein, the Ex.D18 is the jamabandi of the year 1980-81, wherein name of K.G. Muthappa finds a place. The said aspect has been reiterated in the Ex.D20 (jamabandi). In this regard, the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court at paragraph 32 of the Judgment fortifies the case of the plaintiff and as such the Trial Court has decreed the suit. The said aspect of the matter was re- appreciated by the First Appellate Court and in this regard, the entire finding recorded at paragraph 40 and 46 of the First Appellate Court, wherein the First Appellate Court arrived at a conclusion that the signature of the purchaser - Kochana Bopaiah is missing on *all pages and that apart, the boundaries of the property mentioned in ExP2 is different from the plaint schedule property and further it is held that there is no identity of the property in question and as such, the First Appellate Court has reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court. 27. Having taken note of the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court even with regard to Ex.P1 - General Power of Attorney, requires to be reconsidered by the First Appellate *Corrected vide Court Order dated 04.12.2025. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 Court in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAN KAUR (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 18 therein, summerised the guidelines for accepting the power of attorney, said to have been executed by the parties for adducing evidence and to conduct the proceedings. In this regard, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court at paragraph 38 is incorrect and I am of the opinion that there is no impediment for the plaintiff to examine P.W.1 - power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court while re-assessing the evidence on record, requires to be interfered with on the sole ground that, the entire discussion made by the First Appellate Court is based on the revenue entries ignoring the schedule appended to the registered Sale Deeds produced at Exs.P2, P4, P5 and P6. I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, based on the evidence of D.W.6, *father of the vendor of the land in question to the plaintiff, wherein, the D.W.6 points out about the Ex.D1 and the boundaries mentioned to the schedule property. I have also noticed from the evidence of D.W.3 vis-à-vis the recitals in Ex.D16.D.W.3 - K.G. Muthappa is the son of K.S. *Inserted vide Court Order dated 04.12.2025. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 Ganapathy who had sold the property to the defendant. In the cross-examination, he admits that, as per Ex.D16, to an extent of 1.26 acres comprises the schedule of entire extent of 8.26 acres in Sy.No.227. The said aspect of the matter was ignored by the First Appellate Court. In addition to the same, the appellant herein/plaintiff, has filed the application in I.A.1/2025, under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, wherein the appellant has produced the encumbrance certificate for the period 01.04.1977 to 10.07.1994. On careful examination of the encumbrance certificate, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, requires interference in the light of the evidence of D.W.6 which has to be re-assessed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, taking into consideration the discrepancy in the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court, with regard to assessing the issues in the light of the evidence of D.W.6 and D.W.3, I am of the view that, it is a fit case to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to re-appreciate the entire aspects as per Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and give a finding by re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence by the parties. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 28. It is also pertinent to mention here that, I find contradictory statement by D.W.3 and D.W.4 in respect of the extent of possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff which also requires proper re-appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court. Any finding that may be made by the First Appellate Court must be based on the pleadings and documents on record in the suit. In this regard, I am of the view that, the First Appellate Court is required to re-assess the evidence of D.W.3 and D.W.4, particularly taking into consideration paragraph 16 and 17 of the amended plaint. Therefore, the substantial question of law referred to above favours the plaintiff / appellant to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh evaluation of evidence of the parties. 29. In the result, i pass the following: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2016 in R.A.No.25/2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Kodagu, - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39416 RSA No.996 of 2016 Madikeri, is hereby set aside by remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court to re-asses the entire case on merits, in the light of the observation made above. It is also open for the First Appellate Court to consider I.A.1/2025 filed by the appellant herein before this Court and after examining the same, pass appropriate orders. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (iii) The First Appellate Court is directed to expedite the hearing, as the suit is of the year 1995. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 14.11.2025 at 11.00 a.m. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1