UNION OF INDIAversusK.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.

                                [20 I 6) 5 S.C.R. 622


A                              UNION OF INDIA
                                         v.
                           K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 920 of2008)
B ·                               JUNE29,2016
       (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
            Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
             · s.96 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Title suit - Dismissed
C     by trial court - First appeal - Dismissed in limine by High Court -
      On appeal, held: Jurisdiction offirst appellate court is very wide -
      It is duty of the first appellate court to appreciate the entire evidence
      - In the present case, dismissal of the first appeal in limine was not
      correct.
D            Or. 41, r.27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate
      court - Title suit dismissed - In first appeal, production of additional
      evidence - Denied on the ground that the cause for filing the
      additional documents was not sufficient and that the evidence was
      neither material nor relevant - Held: If party to appeal is able to
      satisfy that there was unsatisfiable reason for filing additional
E     evidence at trial stage and the evidence was relevant and material
      for deciding the rights of the parties, the court should allow the
      party to file such additional evidence - In the present case, the
      application for filing additional evidence deserved to be allowed -
      Matter remitted to trial court permitting the plaintiff to produce
F     additional evidence - Opportunity also granted to the defendants
      to file additional evidence in rebuttal.
            Remitting the matter to trial court, the Court
            HELD:
G           1. The High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in
      limine but in the first instance should have admitted the appeal
      and then decided finally after serving notice of the appeal on the
      respondents. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first
      appeal against the decree under Section 96 of CPC a valuable
      legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate
H
                                         622
         UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                            623


Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the         A
Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of
fact or/and oflaw in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate
Court to appreciate the entire evidence and may come to a
conclusion different from that of the Trial Court. [Paras 20,
22 JI 628-C-E I
                                                                           B
      Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by
      L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179: 2001 (1) SCR 948; Madhukar
      & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 756 : 2001
      (3) SCR 138; HK.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10
      SCC 243; Jagannath v. Arulappa & Am: (2005) 12 SCC
      303; B. V Nagesh & Anr. v. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy                    c
      (2010) 13 SCC 530 : 2010 (11) SCR 784; State Bank
      of India & Anr. v. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr.
      (2011) 12 sec 174 : 2011 (10) SCR 436 - relied on.
      Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala
      316 - approved.                                                       D

      2.1 The High Court committed another error when it
rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC. This application should have been allowed for more
than one reason. First, there was no one to oppose the application.
Second, the appellant averred in the application as to why they             E
could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why
there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate
stage, Third, the averments in the application were supported
with an affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the
application also contained necessary averment as to why the                 F
additional evidence was necessary to decide the real controversy
involved in appeal. Fifth, the additional evidence being in the
nature of public documents and pertained to suit land, the same
shou!d have been taken on record and lastly, the appellant being
the Union of India was entitled to legitimately claim more
indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set             G
up and way of working. [Paras 33, 34][632-B-E]
      2.2 Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the party to file
additional evidence at the first and second appellate stage. If the
party to appeal is able to satisfy the appellate Court that there is
                                                                            H
624             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016) 5 S.C.R.



A     justifiable reason for not filing such evidence at the trial stage
      and that the additional evidence is relevant and material for
      deciding the rights of the parties which are the subject matter of
      the /is, the Court should allow the party to file such additional
      evidence. Merely because the Court allowed one party to file
      additional evidence in appeal would not by itself mean that the
B
      Court has also decided the entire case in his favour and accepted
      such evidence. Once the additional evidence is allowed to be
      taken on record, the appellate Court is under obligation to give
      opportunity to the other side to file additional evidence by way of
      rebuttal. [Para 37) (632-G-H; 633-A-B]
c           2.3 Since the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has
      been allowed and the appellant has been permitted to file
      additional evidence then as a necessary consequence, the
      impugned order has to be set aside and respondents are granted
      an opportunity to file additional evidence in rebuttal, if they so
D     wish to file. The case is remanded to the Trial Court for deciding
      the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law. [Paras 38,
      40)(633-C,E]
                                Case Law Reference
               AIR 1969 Kerala 316              approved       Para23
E
               2001 (1) SCR 948                 relied on      Para27
               2001 (3) SCR 138                 relied on      Para28
               2005) 10 sec 243                 relied on     Para29
               (2005) 12 sec 303                relied on      Para30
 F
               2010 (11) SCR 784                relied on      Para31
               2011 (10) SCR 436                relied on      Para 32
              CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 920 of
      2008.
G
           From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2002 of the High Court
      ofKarnataka at Bangalore in RFA No. 933 of2002.
            S. N. Terdal, Shankar Divate, Ms. Sunita Gautam, Ms. Savitri
      Terdal, D. S. Mahra, Advs. for the Appellant.
H             P. P. Singh, Adv. for the Respondents.
         UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                                 625


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
       ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against
the final judgment and order dated 24.06.2003 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 933 of 2002 whereby the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, in consequence,
affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Ist             B
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5588 of
1976.
       2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal,
which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state few relevant
facts.                                                                           C
       3. The appellant - Union oflndia (Divisional Railway Manager,'
Bangalore) is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants
in the suit.
       4. The dispute in this case relates to a plot of land situated near
Krishnarajapuram Railway Station, which is around 14 KMs away from               D
Bangalore city- details of which are mentioned in the plaint (herein after
referred to as "the suit land").
       5. The appellant filed the suit bearing Civil Suit No. 5588/1976
against the respondents in the Court oflstAdditional City Civil and Session
Judge, Bangalore for a declaration that they (appellant) are the owners          E
of the suit land and that the respondents whose ancestral claims to have
interest in the suit land have no right, title and interest in the suit land.
The appellant in order to prove their title over the suit land filed certain
documents.
       6. The respondents filed their written statements and while denying       F
the appellant's title asserted their own title over the suit land through
their predecessors. According to them, their predecessors acquired
occupancy rights under the State Tenancy Laws over the suit land in
revenue proceedings. It was contended that by virtue of these
proceedings, their ancestral acquired superior title over the suit land to
                                                                                 G
the exclusion ofevery one including the appellant and the same devolved
on them after the death of their predecessor in title. The respondents
also raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court on
the basis of the pleading framed issues arising in the civil suit. Parties
adduced evidence.
                                                                                 H
626            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016) 5 S.C.R.



A           7. Therefore, the dispute that essentially arose between the parties
      was who is the owner of the suit land-the appellant (Union of India-
      Railways) or the respondents' predecessor in title?
             8. The Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 11.12.2001
      dismissed the suit on two grounds. It was held that the suit is barred by
B     limitation. It was further held that the plaintiff(the appellant) failed to
      prove their title over the suit land for want of adequate evidence whereas
      the defendants (respondents) were able to prove their title over the suit
      land.
              9. The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the High
c     Court. In the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 41
      Rule 27 vfthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
      "the Code") and sought permission to adduce additional evidence in
      support of their case. The additional evidence inter alia consisted of
      documents iss_ued by the State Land Revenue department in relation to
      the suit land. According to the appellant, these documents were relevant
D     and material for deciding the ownership issue and if properly examined
      along with the documents already filed in the suit, would establish the
      appellan<'s title over the suit land to the exclusion of every one including
      the respondents. It was further alleged that the appellant was not able
      to file these documents in the Trial Court because firstly, these documents
 E    were ol.d; Secondly, the appellants came to know of these documents
      after the decision was rendered in the civil suit; and lastly, since the
      documents were traced recently with great difficulty and being in the
      nature of public documents, the appellant be allowed to file them so as to
      enable the Court to properly decide the issue of ownership in relation to
      the suit land.
 F
             I 0. The learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment running into
      50 pages, dismissed the appellant's first appeal in limine and, in
      consequence, upheld the judgment/decree of the Trial Court. The learned
      Single Judge also dismissed the application filed by the appellant under
      Order4 I Rule 27 of the Code holding that firstly, the cause mentioned in
 G    the application as to why the additional evidence could not be filed in the
      civil suit before the Trial Com1 is not sufficient cause ·and secondly, the
      additional evidence sought to be tendered is neither material nor relevant.
      Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this appeal by way of special leave
      before this Court.
H
          UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                                   627
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE. J.]

      11. Heard Mr. S.N. Terdal, learned counsel for the appellant and             A
Mr. C-irish Ananthamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents.
       12. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the legality
and correctness of the impugned judgment urged several grounds and
submitted that the High Court (Single Judge) erred in dismissing the
appellant's first appeal in limille, so also erred in dismissing the application   B
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code.
        13. Firstly, learned counsel urged that the appeal being in the·
nature of first appeal under Section 96 of the Code should have been
admitted for final hearing a·lmost as of right unlike the second appeal
which is not admitted for final hearing unless it involves some substantial         c
question oflaw. Learned counsel urged that had the appeal been admitted
for final hearing, then the High Court would have been able to go into all
questions of facts and law in its first appellate jurisdiction by party and
come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court.
        14. Secondly, learned counsel urged that since a right to file the         D
first appeal is a valuable legal right, such right could not be taken away
by the High Court in a casual manner by dismissing the appellant's first
appeal in /imine.
       15. Thirdly, learned counsel urged that both the Courts below erred
in dismissing the appellant's suit on the ground oflimitation and on the            E
ground of insufficiency of evidence adduced by the appellant to prove
their ownership overt'1e suit land. Both the findings, according to learned
counsel, are.factually !!nd legally unsustainable and against the record of
the case.                                    ·
       16. Fourthly, learned counsel urged that the High Court further              F
erred in rejecting the application made by the appellant under Order 4 I
Rule 27 of the Code. According to learned counsel, the application made
under Order 41 Rule 27 deserved to be allowed on the grounds set out
therein as also keeping in view the nature of documents filed along with
the application. Learned counsel pointed out that the additional evidence
sought to be adduced ~as relevant for deciding the issue of ownership               G
of the parties over the suit land and hence, the same should have been
taken on record of the case for determining the ownership rights of the
parties in accordance with law.
       I 7. Fifthly, learned counsel pointed out that the approach of the
                                                                                    H
628             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A     High Court while dismissing the application was faulty because the High
      Court while considering the application virtually appreciated the additional
      evidence on merits and found that the documents were not relevant.
      Such approach according to learned counsel was not permissible at the
      time of considering the application.
B           18. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
      impugned judgment and prayed for its upholding. According to learned
      counsel, no case was made out to interfere in the impugned judgment.
             19. Having heard the learned counsel forthe parties and on perusal
      of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the
c     learned rounsel for the appellant.
            20. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
      High Court should not have dismissed the appeal in limine but in the first
      instance should have admitted the appeal and then decided finally after
      serving notice of the appeal on the respondents.
D'           21. We also find from the record that on the one hand, the learned
      Judge observed that the appeal has "absolutely no arguable point"
      and on the other hand to support these observations, the learned Judge
      devoted 50 pages. This itself indicated that the appeal involved arguable
      points.,
E            22. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal
      against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right
      of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate Court while hearing
      the first ;ippeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to
      the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and oflaw in first appeal. It
F     is the duty of the first appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence
      and may come to a conclusion different from that of the Trial Court.
              23. Similarly, the powers of the first appellate Court while deciding
      the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements
      of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to
      take note of the law on this issue.
G
             24. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge - V.R. Krishna Iyer, J
      (as His Lordship then was the judge ofKerala High Court) while deciding
      the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in Kurian Chacko vs.
      Varkey Ousep/1, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate
      Court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive style of
H
          UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                                 629
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

writing with subtle power of expression, the learned judge held as under: A
        "1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come
        up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was
        one for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
        The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property
        as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The                     B
        learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings                   '\f
        against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in
        appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the
        whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences.
        2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily
        and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and                 c
        independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate
        stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I
        have no doubt that in the present case the learned
        Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected
        of him as an appellate Court. Although there is furious                     D
        contest between the counsel for the appellant and for
        the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this
        observation ..... "
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)
        25. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid principle
and laid down the powers of the appellate Court under Section 96 of the E
Code while deciding the first appeal.
        26. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions.
        27. In Stmtosh Hawrivs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs.
(2001) 3 SCC 179, this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under:
        " ....•.... the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or              F
        affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a
        valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law,
        the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on
        questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate
        court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application                    G
        of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all
     ., the issues arising along with the contentions put forth,
        and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate
        court ...... while reversing a finding of fact the appellate
        court must come into close quarters with the
                                                                                    H
 630             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 5 S.C.R.


 A            reasoning assigned by the trial court and then assign
              its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This
              would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that
              the first appellate court had discharged the duty
              expected of it •...••.•.••. "
, B           28. The above view was followed by a three-Judge Bench decision
       of this Court in Madlrukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors.,(2001) 4 SCC
       756, wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is
       the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence
       led by the parties before recording its findings.
              29. In H.K.N. Swami v. lrslrad Basit/r,(2005) JO SCC 243,
 c     this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC para 3)
              "3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well
              as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to
              be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and
              the first appellate court is required to address itself
 D            to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons.
              Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case-- ·
              has not recorded any finding either on facts or on.Jaw.
              Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of
              the High Court to deal with all the issues and the
 E            evidence led by the parties before recording the
              finding regarding title."
              30. Again in Jagannlltlr v. Arulappa & Anr., (2005) 12 SCC
       303, while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil
       Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp. 303-04) observed as follows: (SCC
       para 2)
  F
              "2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire
              evidence and come to a different conclusion ........."
              31. Again in B. V Nageslr & Anr. vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murtlry,
       (20 I0) 13 SCC 530, this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of
       this court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words:
 G
              "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of
              by the appellate court/High Court has been
              considered by this Court in various decisions. Order
              41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees.
              Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the
 H            judgment of the appellate court shall state:
  UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                        631
       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

   (ll) the points for determination;                           A
    (b) the decision thereon;
    (c) the reasons for the decision; and
    (ll) where the decree appealed from is reversed or
    varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled.
  4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or         B
affirm t~e findings of the trial court. The first appeal is
a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by
law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on
questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate
court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application         c
of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all
the issues arising along with the contentions put forth,
and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate
court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of
the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence
led by the parties before recording its findings. The first     D
appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to
be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the
judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all
the issues oflaw and fact and decide it by giving reasons
in support of the findings. (Vide Sllntosh Hazari v.
Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3SCC179 at p.188, para 15
                                                                 E
and Madhukllr v. Slll1gn1m, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758,
para5.)
  5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going
through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High
Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it        F
as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under
appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have
even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an
unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the
judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls
                                                                 G
short of considerations which are expected from the court
of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits
of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned
judgment and decree of the High Court and remand
the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh
disposal in accordance with law."                                H
632             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A           32. The aforementioned cases were relied upon by this Court
      while reiterating the same principle in State Bank ofIndia & Anr. vs.
      Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174.
             33. This takes us to the next question in relation to the application .
      filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. In our considered view, the
B     High Court committed another error when it rejected the application
      filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code. This application,
      in our opinion, should have been allowed for more than one reason.
             34. First, there was no one to oppose the application. In other
      words, the respondents were neither served with the notice of appeal
c     and nor served with the application and hence they did not oppose the
      application. Second, the appellant averred in the application as to why
      they could not file the additional evidence earlier in civil suit and why
      there was delay on their part in filing such evidence at the appellate
      stage. Third, the averments in the application were supported with an
      affidavit, which remained un-rebutted. Fourth, the application also
D     contained necessary averment as to why the additional evidence was
      necessary to decide the real controversy involved in appeal. Fifth, the
      additional evidence being in the nature of public documents and pertained
      to suit land, the same should have been taken on record and lastly, the
      appellant being the Union oflndia was entitled to legitimately claim more
E     indulgence in such procedural matters due to their peculiar set up and
      way of working.
            35. It was for all these reasons, we are of the view that the
      application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code
      deserved to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by permitting the
 F    appellant to file additional evidence.
             36. Learned counsel forthe respondents, however, contended that
      the additional evidence is not relevant for deciding the appeal/suit. He
      also urged that the appellant has not pleaded any cause as required
      under Order 41 Rule 27 to file such evidence at the appellate stage. We
G     are not impressed by this submission in the light of the reasons given
      supra. This submission is accordingly rejected .
            . 37. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code is a provision which enables the
      party to file additional evidence at the first and second appellate stage.
      If the party to appeal is able to satisfy the appellate Court that there is
      justifiable reason for not filing such evidence.at the trial stage and that
H
         UNION OF INDIA v. K.V. LAKSHMAN & ORS.                                 633
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the additional evidence is relevant and material for deciding the rights of     A
the parties which are the subject matter of the tis, the Court should
allow the party to file such additional evidence. After all, the Court has
to do substantial justice to the parties. Merely because the Court allowed
one party to file additional evidence in appeal would not by itself mean
that the Court has also decided the entire case in his favour and accepted
                                                                                 B
such evidence. Indeed once the additional evidence is allowed to be
taken on record, the appellate Court is under obligation to give opportunity
to the other side to file additional evidence by way ofrebuttal.
       38. Coming to the case, since we have allowed the application
made by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code and has
permitted the appellant to file additional evidence then as a necessary
                                                                                 c
consequence, the impugned order has to be set aside and respondents
are granted an opportunity to file additional evidence in rebuttal, if they
so wish to file.
      39. The other inevitable consequence is that the case has to be
remanded either to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on             D
merits or to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in
accordance with law.
       40. Having regard to the nature of controversy and the manner in
which the suit/appeal was decided, we consider it appropriate, in the
interest of parties, to remand the case to the Trial Court (District and         E
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in
accordance with law.
      41. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned judgment and also the judgment/decree passed
by the Trial Court are set aside.                                                F
       42. The civil suit is now restored to its file. The Trial Court, i.e.,
District and Sessions Judge Bengaluru, is directed to retry the civil suit
on merits. The additional evidence filed by the appellant is taken on
record. The respondents are afforded an opportunity to file additional
evidence in support of their case in rebuttal. The parties are at liberty to     G    ~


amend their pleadings in case, if they so wish and further adduce additional
oral evidence in support of their respective case in addition to what has
already been adduced and prove the documents filed at the appellate
stage.
                                                                                 H
634             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2016] 5 S.C.R.


A            43. While trying the civil suit, the Court may in its discretion or at
      the instance of any party, as the case may be, consider appointing Court
      Commissioner preferably any retired government revenue official by
      taking recourse to the provisions of Order 26 of the Code to undertake
      spot inspection of the suit land with a view to verify its exact location,
      area, boundaries etc. keeping in view the evidence on record in relation
B
      to the suit land.
             44. The Trial Court shall decide the civil suit strictly in accordance
      with law on the basis of pleadings and the evidence adduced by the
      parties uninfluenced by any observations, reasoning and the findings of
      the two Courts below which stand now set aside.
c
             45. We may also clarify that we have refrained from recording
      any finding either way on the merits.
            46. Since the civil suit is quite old, we direct the District and Sessions
      Judge Bengaluru to decide the civil suit expeditiously and preferably
D     within 6 months from the date of party's appearance before him. Parties
      to appear before the District and Sessions Judge Bengal urn on 01.08.2016.
              47. The original record of the case, if requisitioned, be sent
      forthwith to the Trial Court (District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) so
      as to reach to the Court concerned before the date of parties appearance.
E            48. No costs.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                            Matter remitted back to trial court.