CHIKKADEVAIAH Vs. C A BORAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.276/94 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM, Mandya, have come up in this second appeal challenging the divergent finding rendered in RA.No.3/2000 on the file of Principal District Judge, Mandya. Plaintiffs in the original suit filed the said suit for the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.562 of Mandya measuring to an extent of 1 Hectare 64 aeirs, which according to them, belonged to the ancestors of their family. The said suit was filed by them against one C.A.Boraiah, who is none other than the member of the same family and the 2nd defendant in the said suit was Deputy Commissioner, Mandya.

(2.) In the said suit, after written statement were filed by both the defendants, issues were framed, which are as under:-

(3.) After recording the evidence, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 against both the defendants. The 1st defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.3/2000 on the file of Prl.District Judge, Mandya, wherein, the lower appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 23.03.2001, set aside the earlier judgment dated 17.12.1999 and remanded the matter back to the trial court to consider the following issues which were re-casted by the lower appellate court. They read as under: