JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.—These two appeals are directed against the common Judgment and Decrees passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Appeal Nos. 32 and 33 of 1994, dated 21.7.1990 in affirming the common Judgment and Decrees passed in OS No. 185 of 1981 and 219 of 1983 dated 27.1.1984 urging that there are substantial questions of law as required under proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code for exercise of power by this Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. 2. The ranks of the parties are referred in this common Judgment as has been described in the Courts below for the sake of convenience. Certain relevant necessary facts are stated as hereunder for the purpose of considering and answering the rival submissions urged by the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties with reference to the impugned Judgments and the material evidence on record. 3. The appellants are Plaintiffs in OS No. 195 of 1981 filed before the Prl. Munsiff, Sagar for grant of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 109/2 to an extent of 31 guntas of land contending that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property in question who has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Defendants in OS 195 of 1981 filed another Original Suit in No. 219 of 1983 before the same Court praying for grant of declaratory relief and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 109/1 to the extent of 1 acre 32 guntas by granting Judgment and Decree for declaratory relief that they are the absolute owners of the property in question. Both the parties in the respective original suits opposed the claim and counter claim by filing their respective written statements asserting their respective rights of ownership and title to the respective suit schedule properties by producing the documents in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court by consent of the parties, clubbed both the original suits and recorded common evidence. The Trial Court by consent of the parties, clubbed both the original suits and recorded common evidence. The second Plaintiff in OS 195 of 1981 has examined two witnesses as P Ws 2 and 3 as Plaintiff's witnesses and marked exhibits P1 to P11 and the Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 who were the Defendants in first original suit filed by the appellants in first appeal were examined as DW-1, the second Defendant in the first suit produced and marked Exhibits D1 to D9 in support of their cases. In original suit No. 219 of 1983, at the instance of Plaintiffs in the suit who are the Defendants in the first suit got appointed Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement to inspect the suit property and submit a report and also the sketch in respect of the suit schedule property in respect of OS 195 of 1981. The Trial Court has passed a common judgment on 27.1.1984 dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiff in OS 195 of 1981 and OS No. 219 of 1983 filed by Respondents herein who are the Plaintiffs in the said suit. 4. The appellants in these cases who are the Plaintiffs in OS 190 of 1981 were aggrieved by the common Judgment and Decrees passed in Original Suits referred to above filed Regular Appeals under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code before the Civil Judge, Sagar. Both the appeals were heard together and points were formulated for consideration at paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment and answered the same by affirming the common Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in the OS filed by the parties. The appellants in these appeals filed application in IA-1 under Order 41, Rule 27(aa) Civil Procedure Code requesting the first appellate Court to permit them to adduce evidence in respect of the documents summoned by them and received by the Trial Court from the ADLR, Sagar along with letter dated 9.12.1983 in OS No. 195 of 1981 and also further to permit them to adduce the additional evidence with respect to sale deed in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 109 in No. 84/1908-1909 dated 10.11.1908 and un-registered document of partition dated 192/1906-1907 dated 20.3.1907, the partition deed in respect of Old Sy. No. 109 in No. 84/1908-1909 dated 10.11.1908 and un-registered document of partition dated 192/1906-1907 dated 20.3.1907, the partition deed in respect of Old Sy. No. 99 which was re-numbered as 109 to show that the suit schedule property of the Plaintiffs in OS No. 219 of 1983 who are Respondents in these appeals have got the property to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas but not 1 acre 32 Guntas as claimed by them in the OS referred to supra. The said application was dismissed by the first appellate Court by answering Point No. 1 at para-13 in Regular Appeal 33 of 1984 holding that the Plaintiffs have not shown that they were prevented from producing the documents along with IA-I and to lead evidence in respect of documents summoned from ADLR, Sagar before the Trial Court and they have not adduced any evidence in respect of those documents and the application was filed more than 2 and half years and for the reasons recorded in the said paragraph, it rejected the said application. 5. The appellants who are Plaintiffs in OS 195 of 1981 aggrieved of the impugned Judgment passed in both the regular appeals referred to supra filed these second appeals contending that the substantial questions of law would arise for consideration of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. This Court, on 24.6.1991 at the time of admission of these appeals has formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration of these appeals: 1. Whether the Courts below have ignored the recitals in the partition deed with regard to the dividing boundary which is the Halla to come to the conclusion that the Respondents in these appeals have proved their title to the extent of the land claimed them in their suit and that the appellants have failed to prove their title to the extent of land held by them. 2. Whether the framing of issues of title at the time of Judgment without affording opportunity to the Defendant in OS No. 219 of 1983 has caused prejudice to the Defendants in that suit? 3. Whether the rejection of the application under Order 41, Rule 21 Civil Procedure Code of the appellants in the first appellate Court for permitting to lead additional evidence has resulted in miscarriage of justice? 6. 3. Whether the rejection of the application under Order 41, Rule 21 Civil Procedure Code of the appellants in the first appellate Court for permitting to lead additional evidence has resulted in miscarriage of justice? 6. With reference to the aforesaid questions of law framed by this Court, learned Counsel on behalf of appellants addressed arguments inviting the attention of this Court to the material evidence on record with reference to the findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. At the time of addressing argument, the Counsel for appellants prepared synopsis and requested this Court to re-frame the substantial question of law in the place of substantial question of law No. 1 framed by this Court. 7. Further, during the course of arguments, he has formulated another substantial question of law required to be framed and sought permission of this Court to address arguments on the said substantial question of law. Today he has filed memo with regard to the new substantial question of law which is framed as additional substantial question of law with a copy of the same being served upon the Counsel for Respondents to enable him to address arguments. The additional substantial question of law framed today is as follows: Whether the Courts below were justified in relying upon Ex.D3 sketch of Commissioner to grant decree declaring the Respondents as owners and in possession of 1.32 acres of Sy. No. 109/1, when the disputed sketch and contents thereof have not been proved by examining the Commissioner and when it is not in conformity with the extent and boundaries mentioned in the title deeds of the parties and admission of DW1 at para 6 of his deposition regarding the extent claimed by him and when Ex.D3 does not mention the extent of land? AND Whether the Courts below were justified in relying upon the Tippani-Ex.D9 when the Respondent has admitted that when and on what basis the phodi was effected and when it is not in conformity with the extent and boundary in Ex.P2 and also upon RTC and pahanis Exs.D4 and D8 to decree the suit of Respondents without considering the rebuttal evidence and when Tippani and RTC and pahanis which are land records are not final and binding on the Civil Court in view of Section 62 (b) and (c) and also proviso to Section 135 read with Section 2(16) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act? 8. The learned Counsel for Plaintiff/appellant Sri R. Gopal submitted that rejection of I.A.I in Regular Appeal 33 of 1984 is bad in law as the same is contrary to Order 41, Rule 27(aa) and Karnataka Amendment by Act 104 of 1976 which came into force with effect from 1.2.1977, enabling the parties to adduce additional evidence in the Regular Appeal after satisfying the Court by assigning the reasons as mentioned under Clause (aa) of Rule 27 of Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code referred to supra. He has further placed reliance upon the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy and Others, AIR 1979 SC 553 , Arjun Singh alias Puran Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, AIR 1951 SC 193 , Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Another Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Others, JT (1994) 3 SC 339 , K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 and this Court's Judgment reported in Patel Enterprises Vs. M.P. Ahuja, ILR (1992) KAR 3772 in support of his submission that the discretionary power conferred upon the first appellate Court to receive additional evidence in support of the case of the Plaintiff has not been exercised properly even though the law has been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court and this Court holding that, if the documents are found to be necessary by the Court for its just decision in the matter and certain circumstances resulted in denial of justice to the parties, the Court may act upon the additional evidence sought to be produced on record to resolve the real controversy between the parties. 9. 9. The learned Counsel for appellant/Plaintiffs has substantiated his submission stating that both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court have ignored the material evidence placed on record in support of their claim in the original suit. The trial Court on considering the documents Exs. D1 to D9 produced by the deceased Plaintiff in OS 219 of 1983 in support of his claim while answering issues framed by it placing reliance upon the RTC Extracts produced at exhibits D4 to D8 and D9 the 'Tippani' copy and the sketch Ex.D3 prepared by the Court Commissioner who was appointed at their instance to substantiate their claim for the purpose of inspecting the suit schedule property in OS 195 of 1981 and to submit his report without examining the Court Commissioner before the Trial Court as required under Order 26, Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court has recorded a finding of fact holding that boundaries of the suit schedule properties of Plaintiffs/appellants will not tally with the suit schedule property in OS 219 of 1983 filed by Respondents in the said suit. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the reliance placed upon the documents both by the Trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge particularly on Exs. D4 to D8 and D9 which are the land records documents are not final and binding on the appellants-Plaintiffs in view of the provisions of Section 62 (b) and (c) also proviso to Section 135 read with Section 2(16) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the reasons assigned by both the Courts below in the impugned judgments are contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as they have taken into consideration the documents of revenue records in respect of the property in question and recorded a finding of fact while answering the issues framed in original suit filed by the appellant/Plaintiffs holding that they have not established their title to the property in question. Therefore, it is urged and contended by the learned Counsel that would constitutes an additional substantial question of law as framed in these appeals would arise for consideration and answer the same by this Court in their favour in exercise of its jurisdiction and power. Therefore, it is urged and contended by the learned Counsel that would constitutes an additional substantial question of law as framed in these appeals would arise for consideration and answer the same by this Court in their favour in exercise of its jurisdiction and power. In support of the above said additional substantial question of law, the learned Counsel for the appellants-Plaintiffs has placed reliance on number of Judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, which are reported in Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and Another, AIR 1989 SC 1809 , Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela Vs. Smt. Kalyani Banerjee and Others, AIR 1973 SC 408 , Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1994 SC 1496 , Rajasab Husseinsab Mulla Vs. Inayuthullakhan, ILR (1992) KAR 1649 . Further he would submits that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court while granting the declaratory relief in the appeal filed by the Respondents-Defendants in Regular Appeal No. 33 of 1994 are erroneous in law for the reason that the first Appellate Court without there being evidence on record has recorded its findings in their favour and granted the reliefs as prayed in their original suit. Further, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/appellants submits that non-examination of Court Commissioner in the Trial Court as required under Order 26, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code to prove the contents of the Commissioners sketch by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the OS No. 219 of 1983 and produced and marked the Commissioners sketch at Ex.D3 prepared without examining him and thereby the trial Court has denied the right of cross-examination by the Plaintiffs/appellants, and that the said evidence has been taken into consideration by both the Courts below without considering the relevant fact that Ex.D3 is not placed on record by the Defendants in OS No. 195 of 1981 as positive and substantive evidence by examining the Court Commissioner as required in law, and therefore the contents of the said documents are not proved as law laid down by the Apex Court reported in Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Others, AIR 1972 SC 330 therefore, it is urged by the learned Counsel that placing reliance on the said document by the Courts below while answering the relevant issues and Points framed in both the suits against the appellants/Plaintiffs is erroneous in law. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and Others, AIR 1972 SC 330 therefore, it is urged by the learned Counsel that placing reliance on the said document by the Courts below while answering the relevant issues and Points framed in both the suits against the appellants/Plaintiffs is erroneous in law. Therefore it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/Plaintiffs that would constitute the substantial question of law as framed by this Court, in support of his submission to show that there is a substantial question of law as framed by this Court does arise in this case and he has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power under the provisions of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code, if it is of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below are erroneous in law as the same are being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or it is settled position of law and the rights accrued in favour of the parties on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, this Court can exercise its power and set aside the Judgments as the same are vitiated on account of erroneous findings recorded by the Courts below. 10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents- Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 Mr. Jayaprakash had sought to justify the impugned Judgment of the first appellate Court placing reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy and Others, AIR 1979 SC 553 & K. Venkataramiah Vs. 10. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents- Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 Mr. Jayaprakash had sought to justify the impugned Judgment of the first appellate Court placing reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court reported in Syed Abdul Khader Vs. Rami Reddy and Others, AIR 1979 SC 553 & K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 in support of the proposition that the first appellate Court has got the discretionary power either to accept or not to accept the additional evidence and further reception of the additional evidence as provided under Order 41, Rule 27(aa) Civil Procedure Code by the first Appellate Court is not mandatory as the reasons assigned by it would not vitiate the impugned Judgment and that by itself would not constitute the substantial question of law required to be framed by this Court for its consideration and answer the same by passing orders in the Appeals, as the first appellate Court on the basis of material evidence on record has come to the right conclusions and it is of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient for it to record its findings on the points formulated by it for determination of the rights of the parties with reference to the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Decrees of the first appellate Court. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Hari Singh Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3325 , Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Hari Singh Vs. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 1999 SC 3325 , Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 in support of the proposition of law that this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power under Section 100 has no power to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below in the impugned judgments though in the second appeal it is found that the findings are erroneous and this Court cannot substitute its opinion or reasons in the place of the findings and reasons assigned in the judgments of the Courts below for the reason that the first appellate Court being the last Court on facts and it has accepted the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in its judgment, is no reason or ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned Judgment in these Appeals. This Court in exercise of its power in these second appeals when it is found that the first appellate Court has given satisfactory reasons in support of its findings and conclusions in its judgment then the power of this Court shall not be exercised and interfered with the impugned judgment, in support of this submission the learned Counsel has placed much reliance upon the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra. Further the learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs in the suit referred to above would submits that the Courts below have recorded the reasons in the impugned judgments on proper appreciation and consideration of the material evidence on record and therefore, he submits that this Court should not interfere with the impugned common judgment in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power. It is further urged that, the examination of the Court Commissioner in the Trial Court is not mandatory to mark the sketch prepared by him after executing the commissioner warrant in OS 195 of 1991 and further substantiated his submission by placing reliance upon Order 26, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code he urges stating that by close reading of the said provision of the Civil Procedure Code the Court Commissioner is not required to examine by a party to mark the document who relies upon it to prove the sketch prepared by him in pursuant to execution of Commissioner's warrant as the said sketch is part of evidence on record. Both the Courts below have considered the document Ex.D3 for the purpose of recording their findings supported with cogent and valid reasons in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the impugned Judgment and Decree need not be interfered with by this Court. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length in these Appeals, I had taken up the substantial question No. 3 framed by this Court for my consideration in these Appeals to find out as to whether the submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties are tenable or not, and whether the substantial question of law framed by this Court would really arise for its consideration and exercise of its jurisdiction and power under the provision of Section 100 Civil Procedure Code. The same is answered by this Court as hereunder with reference to the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties with reference to the case law cited and relied upon by them after considering the interlocutory application No. 3 filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants for production of additional evidence in support of their case and to summon ADLR and get those documents marked and proved in support of their case. 12. I.A.I was filed by the Defendants in OS 219 of 1983 who are the Plaintiffs/appellants in OS 195 of 1981 to permit them to adduce additional evidence in support of their case and to summon the ADLR and get the documents marked and proved which were summoned from the said office to adduce additional evidence in support of their case. I.A.I was filed by the Defendants in OS 219 of 1983 who are the Plaintiffs/appellants in OS 195 of 1981 to permit them to adduce additional evidence in support of their case and to summon the ADLR and get the documents marked and proved which were summoned from the said office to adduce additional evidence in support of their case. Order 41, Rule 27 Clause (aa) Civil Procedure Code of Karnataka Amendment to Civil Procedure Code enables the parties to produce the additional evidence in the Regular Appeal before the first Appellate Court by satisfying the reasons as contemplated under Clause (aa) of Rule 27 of the said Order. The learned first Appellate Court's Judge, has not rejected the said application solely on the ground that material evidence on record produced by the Plaintiffs in the OS 195 of 1981 is sufficient to answer the points formulated by him with reference to the rival contentions of the parties on examination of findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court. The reasons assigned by the first appellate Court at paragraph-13 of the impugned judgment while answering Point No. 1 in Regular Appeal 33 of 1984 the reasons assigned by it in the impugned judgment with reference to the application referred to supra are not legal and valid for the reason that the first appellate Court has rejected the application after recording a finding stating that nothing prevented the appellants/Plaintiffs to produce the additional documents which were produced along with the application as evidence and also to lead the evidence on the documents summoned from ADLR, Sagar before the Trial Court. The said reasons recorded by the first appellate Court in the impugned judgment without considering the reasons and explanation assigned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.I, wherein the second Plaintiff has stated at page-2 of the affidavit that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the existence of documents namely partition deed dated 20.3.1907, the sale deed dated 10.11.1908 which property was purchased by Respondents-Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 and they were all the old documents and they were not in possession of originals at the time of trial of the original suit and they are uneducated villagers not conversant with the procedure of litigation. Therefore, they have stated in the application that the same could not be produced in the Original Suit and the certified copies were obtained from the Sub-Registrar after they came to know about the existence of those documents when they were casually discussing with one Mr. Mahadevaiah who is a distant 'dayadi' of appellants-Plaintiffs. 13. Regarding non-examination of ADLR before the trial Court to prove the contents of the documents in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 191/1 to show that the Plaintiffs have been in possession as owners of said property by getting the documents marked through him in OS No. 195 of 1981, due to inadvertence and by mistake same were not marked through ADLR and by that time the recording of evidence of the parties in the original suit proceedings was closed. These reasons have not been taken into consideration by the first appellate Court by considering the relevant facts and the rights of the Plaintiffs as to whether the application filed by appellants-Plaintiffs have satisfied the legal requirement as provided under Clause (aa) of the Rule 27 of Order 41 Civil Procedure Code referred to above. Therefore, I have to record a finding holding that the first appellate Court has not exercised its discretionary power properly and rightly while rejecting the applications. Therefore, I have to record a finding holding that the first appellate Court has not exercised its discretionary power properly and rightly while rejecting the applications. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the Judgment by the learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent-Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 are not applicable to the facts of the present case but, on the other hand, the reliance placed upon the Judgments of the Apex Court and this Court referred to above in the earlier paragraphs of this Judgment by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/appellants for the proposition that the first appellate Court being the last fact finding authority was required to examine whether the additional evidence sought to be produced by a party is relevant to decide the real issue in controversy between the parties and reasons assigned in the affidavit of such application are either real or genuine having regard to the fact that the reasons assigned have not been controverted by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in their statement of objections filed to the application, except stating that the appellant/Plaintiffs in OS No. 195 of 1981 are not entitled to adduce additional evidence in their Appeal, as the same is not required to be produced and taken on record for the purpose of pronouncing the Judgment of the case by the first Appellate Court by resolving the controversy between the parties. Therefore, I have to record a finding that, in view of clear pronouncement by the Supreme Court reported in Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. M. Papaiah and Another, AIR 1989 SC 1809 , Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela Vs. Smt. Kalyani Banerjee and Others, AIR 1973 SC 408 and Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1994 SC 1496 which are referred to in the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant/Plaintiffs on the question referred to supra. Therefore, the rejection of application by the first Appellate Court having regard to the claim made by the Respondents/Plaintiffs in these Appeals for grant of declaratory relief in their original suit to declare them as owners of the property in question to an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas which relief has been granted by the first appellate Court while answering the other points on merits based on RTC records 'Tippani' copies and the sketch prepared by the Court Commissioner. Further, keeping in view the relevant fact that the said records and documents are Revenue documents which are not the title documents as held by the Apex Court in catena of cases which are referred to supra at paragraph 9 of this judgment. For the reasons stated supra, in my considered view, the submission made on behalf of appellants/Plaintiffs is well founded and the same must be accepted. Therefore, I have to record a finding that substantial question of law No. 3 as framed by this Court in these Appeals has really arisen in this case for consideration of this Court and exercise of its power and the substantial question is accordingly answered in favour of appellants-Plaintiffs in OS No. 195 of 1981. 14. The re-framed substantial question of law No. 2, and the additional questions of law as raised by the Plaintiffs/appellants are taken up together for examining whether they would constitute and arise the substantial questions of law or not in these appeals. These questions are examined with reference to the rival contentions urged by the parties and answered the same as hereunder. In this case, the first appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issue Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) in OS 219 of 1983 and Issue No. 2 in OS No. 195 of 1981 and also on IA No. 1 in OS 219 of 1983 placing reliance on the 'Tippani' copy Ex.D9, the Commissioner's sketch Ex.D3 and Ex.P1 held that the schedule of the property as described in OS 195 of 1981 does not tally with Sy. No. 109/2 in respect of which the appellants-Plaintiffs sought for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Further this Court has to record a finding that the said documents are not final and binding on appellants-Plaintiffs in view of the provision under Section 62(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in view of clear pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited supra at paragraph 9 of this judgment and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Rajasab Husseinsab Mulla Vs. Inayuthullakhan, ILR (1992) KAR 1649 Therefore, re-framed substantial question of law No. 1 and additional substantial question of law framed today would really constitute substantial question of law in view of the Judgments of the Apex Court reported in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that this Court in exercise of its power under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code can interfere with the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court if it is found that the conclusions drawn by it in the impugned judgment are erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or it is settled position of law on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court. 15. Therefore, in my considered view, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 with all force applicable to the facts of these cases for the reason that the first appellate Court has committed an illegality in accepting the revenue records Ex.D1, D4 and Tippani copy Ex.D9 which documents are not final and binding on the appellants-Plaintiffs as the entries made in the originals of those documents were not made after issuance and service of notices to them and further they are revenue records under Section 62(1)(b)(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Section 2(16) of the said Act, and therefore they are not title deeds of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in OS No. 219 of 1983 in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the points formulated by the first appellate Court in the impugned Judgment on the basis of rival contentions urged by the parties and recording its finding on the point regarding the title of Respondents-Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 and placing much reliance upon RTC records and the Tippani copy Ex.D9 which documents are not binding upon the Plaintiffs/appellants in OS No. 195 of 1981 for the reasons stated supra and the Courts below have wrongly held that the Respondents-Plaintiffs in OS No. 219 of 1983 have proved their title to the suit schedule property which findings recorded in the impugned judgments by the Courts below on appreciation of facts and evidence on record is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 referred to supra and also the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra wherein it has been clearly held that revenue records/the pattas of the property in question are not documents of title therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the case cited supra with all force are applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, this Court has to answer the above said substantial questions of law as framed by this Court at the time of admission and re-casted as question No. 1 by this Court at the time of hearing these appeals after due notice to other side on the request of the Plaintiffs/appellants Counsel and the additional question of law as framed by this Court would really constitute substantial question of law and the same are answered in favour of the Plaintiffs/appellants for the reasons stated supra. Further non-examination of Court Commissioner to prove Ex.D3 sketch prepared by him as required under Order 26, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1972 SC 330 to the effect that the contents of the document should be proved otherwise by mere marking of the document does not amounts to proof, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore said case the Courts below have committed an illegality taking into consideration of the said unproved documents as substantive piece of evidence and recorded its findings in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs even though the contents of the same was not proved by examining the Court Commissioner before the trial Court. For this reason also, the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the first appellate Court in the impugned Judgment are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act, as provided under Order 26, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code and the law laid down by this Court as referred to supra. Therefore, this Court has to record a finding that the submission made on behalf of appellants is well-founded and same must be accepted. 16. For the reasons recorded by me in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment while answering the substantial questions of law, the submission made by the learned Counsel for Respondents- Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 is not tenable in law. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs/appellants must succeed. Hence, I pass the following Judgment: 17. The Appeals are allowed. Impugned Judgment of the Courts below are set aside. I.A.I in Regular Appeal No. 33 of 1994 is allowed. Matters are remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to permit the appellant-Plaintiff to adduce additional evidence as prayed in the said IA and further, Respondents-Plaintiffs in OS 219 of 1983 are also entitled to produce additional evidence and rebuttal evidence if any in support of their claim. IA.II filed by the appellants for production of additional evidence is not considered by this Court as the same is unnecessary in these Appeals. It is open for the appellants-Plaintiffs to file such applications before the Trial Court as they deem fit in the circumstances. IA.II filed by the appellants for production of additional evidence is not considered by this Court as the same is unnecessary in these Appeals. It is open for the appellants-Plaintiffs to file such applications before the Trial Court as they deem fit in the circumstances. If such applications are filed by the Plaintiffs/ appellants, the same may be examined and considered on merits by the trial Court and appropriate orders may be passed by it and decide the original suit in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts of these Appeals no costs are awarded.