LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree dated 2-9-1978 made in R. A. No. 62/74, on the file of the Prl. Civil judge, Belgaum, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22-1-1974 made in O. S. No. 52/71 on the file of the Munsiff, bailhongal. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are :- the Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and possession of his 1/9th share in the suit land of Doddawad village in Bailhongal taluk. Defendant No. 1 Basawannappa appeared and filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant No. 1 Basawannappa, Defendant no. 2 Shankar Chanabasappa Murgod, defendant No. 3 Mallikarjun Chanabasappa murgod, Defendant No. 4 Smt. Sumitra, defendant No. 5 Ansuya, Defendant No. 6 keshawwa and Defendant No. 7 Chinnawwa are the children of one deceased chanabasappa Shankarappa Murgod, the said Chanabasappa died on 10-3-1963, defendant No. 8 Gangawwa is the w/o chanabasappa Murgod. The suit land bearing Sy. No. 397/2 measuring 11 Acres 30 guntas of Doddawad village, originally belonged to one Chinnawwa wife of shankarappa Murgod. The said chinnawwa gifted the said land for life in favour of her only daughter Sanganabasawwa alias awakka W/o Iratappa Sobarad of Kittur, under a registered gift deed, Ex. P-1, on 6-5-1922, with a condition that in the event of her death prior to Awakka, the land should go to her own legal heirs. Awakka died issue less on 26-10-1944. Hence the land devolved upon Chanabasappa the adoptive son of chinnawwa for her husband-Shankarappa. Accordingly after the death of Awakka, the name of Channabasappa came to be incorporated in the record of rights in respect of the suit land and the land came under his actual possession and enjoyment and remained so till her death. Thereafter, property came to be managed by defendant no. 1 Basawannappa his eldest son, on behalf of the undivided family. The plaintiff now alleged that defendant No. 1 managed to get his name entered in respect of the suit land, in the record of rights without his knowledge but with the help of the Revenue authorities, etc. , Basawwa died when basawannappa was aged about 1 year and therefore, he became the beloved child of sanganabasawwa and came under her protection. , Basawwa died when basawannappa was aged about 1 year and therefore, he became the beloved child of sanganabasawwa and came under her protection. She, out of love and affection, be queathed the suit land to defendant No. 1 under Registered will Exh. D. 3 on 21-7-1944 and died subsequently on 26-10-1944. ( 3 ) ON the pleadings the learned Munsiff raised the following issues :-"1. Does the plaintiff prove that the suit schedule, properly developed upon channabasappa, adopted son of shankarappa Murgod, after the death of Sanganabasawwa ? 2. Does he prove that his father was exclusive owner in possession and was managing the property as manager of the joint family of the plaintiff and defendant ? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to 1/9th share along with other defendants in the suit properties ? 4 ). Does first defendant prove that under the will dated 21-7-1944 executed by sanganbasawwa he got the rights exclusively and thereafter he is in possession in his own right ? 5. To what reliefs are the parties entitled ? the learned Munsiff answered Issue nos. 1, and 2 in the negative. He answered issue No. 4 in the following terms"will dated 21-7-1944 not proved, defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit land. " ( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff after appreciating the evidence on record and after hearing, the advocates for both the parties dismissed the suit with costs. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff filed regular appeal No. 62/74 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. The learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said Judgments and Decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff filed this appeal in this court. At the time of admission, the following questions were raised by this Court :- 1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances established in this case, whether the findings of the lower appellate Court on point No. 1 is justified in law ? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in law, in not recording any findings on Point No. 2 ? mr. Having regard to the facts and circumstances established in this case, whether the findings of the lower appellate Court on point No. 1 is justified in law ? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in law, in not recording any findings on Point No. 2 ? mr. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, vehemently urged that, though the learned first Appellate Judge has given concurrent findings on questions of fact, he has committed a grave error in Law by not considering the material placed on record. If that would have been taken into consideration, the findings given by the First appellate Judge would have been quite different. Therefore, it is a grave error committed by the First Appellate Judge, on account of which the findings now given by the first Appellate Judge are not only perverse but also illegal. The learned counsel vehemently urged that the first appellate Judge relied upon the entries in the record of rights without referring to the relevant mutation entries. It is found in the record of Rights in Kabjedar column that the name of Shankarappa Murgod dattu thande is found and these entries are bracketed and above that, two numbers of the mutation are entered as 929 and 49. Why his name is removed is not known. If the learned first Appellate Judge had considered those relevant entries he would have been justified in expressing his opinion. Similarly, below that entry, the name of Basavannappa chanabasappa Murgod is entered. Here again, we find the number of mutations, the name of Basavanappa Chanabasappa murgod has been entered. In pursuance of those relevant mutation entries, why these entries are made and whether they are correctly entered or not, cannot be said, unless those entries are considered by the court. Similarly, we find nothing in the other rights column. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the first Appellate Judge, in this respect, cannot be considered to be correct, without necessary reasons. I think, there is some force in the contention rised by Mr. Goulay learned counsel for the Appellant. I have also noticed that there are some pencil entries in the record of rights, Those entries are not properly considered by the courts below. Therefore the entries in the Revenue records were not considered by both the courts below. I think, there is some force in the contention rised by Mr. Goulay learned counsel for the Appellant. I have also noticed that there are some pencil entries in the record of rights, Those entries are not properly considered by the courts below. Therefore the entries in the Revenue records were not considered by both the courts below. I think in the interest of justice and equity the matter will have to go to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Wherefore the judgments and Decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed, both the Judgments and Decrees of both the courts below are set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce any evidence and produce any documents if they want to do so, at this stage to settle the controversy between them. --- *** --- .