T. S. SATHYANARAYANA Vs. T. R. KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants in both the appeals.

(2.) These two appeals are filed before this Court challenging the order passed in R.A.Nos.14/2020 and 24/2020 wherein the Appellate Court set aside the order passed in FDP No.3/2010 on 3/4/2019 and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in coming to the conclusion that the survey sketch and the report submitted by the Court Commissioner appears that he had measured Sy.No.1/2, 1/11, 1/22, 1/2c and 1/11b and marked 1/5th share in the pink colour. It is also mentioned in the report that Sy.No.1/2 is totally measuring 14.64 acres but as per the Akarband, Sy.No.1/22 is measuring 6.8 acres and Sy.No.1/2c is measuring 7.84 acres but it totally measuring 14.64 acres. Therefore, he has reported that said two properties are same as Sy.No.1/2 measuring 14.64 acres and further reported that Sy.No.1/11b, 1/22, 1/2c are totally measuring 21.14 acres and out of the said three times, he has demarcated 1/5th share i.e., in Sy.No.1/11b - 1.30 acres, in Sy.No.1/22 - 1.36 acres and in Sy.No. 1/2c - 1.57 acres, in totally 4.23 acres was marked in pink colour towards 1/5th share. but as per the decree, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in 'B' schedule property. Admittedly, 'B' schedule property is Sy.No.1/22 - 6.80 acres, Sy.No.1/2c - 7.84 acres and 1/11b - 2.27 acres and in these items, 1/5th share will have to be demarcated. The counsel submits that the Trial Court without verifying the difference, committed mistake by accepting the commissioner report and accordingly, passed the final decree and also marked the commissioner's report and sketch as part and parcel of the decree.

(3.) The other ground for filing the appeal is that the Trial Court has committed the mistake that without passing an order on I.A. which is filed for impleading the legal representatives of Ramamurthy and Thimmaraju, the final decree was passed and hence, the said judgment needs to be set aside. The other reason given by the Trial Court that the advocate for the appellants has produced the certified copy of the village map and endorsement given by the survey department contending that Sy.No. 1/11 and 1/2 are not existing in Akarband and sketch but there is no decree in respect of 'A' schedule property in favour of the plaintiff in the original proceedings and hence, the production of said additional documents is not required and there are no sufficient ground to mark those documents as additional evidence.