L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent filed o. S. No. 122 of 1989 in the Court of Junior civil Judge, Shadnagar, for the relief of perpetual injunction against the appellant, in respect of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 234, of Farooqnagar Village, Shadnagar, mahabubnagar. According to her, an extent of 20 guntas of land, was purchased by herself and one Gouramma, through sale deed dated 13-6-1986, marked as Ex. A2. It is stated that the boundaries in the sale deed were rectified through Ex. A3, dated 8-11-1988. Subsequently, Gouramma, is said to have sold her undivided share, in favour of the respondent, through Ex. A4, dated 14-2-1989. Thereby, the respondent became absolute owner of 20 guntas of land. She also stated that she purchased adjoining land of 10 guntas, in the same survey number, through Ex. A5, dated 6-6-1989. She complained that the appellant herein started interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. ( 2 ) THE appellant, in turn, filed a counter-claim, seeking declaration of title and injunction, in respect of an extent of Ac. 1. 00 of land, in the same survey number. According to him, the land was purchased from the same vendor, namely, Ramulu, by one Lalithamma through Ex. B2, dated 6-2-1976, and that he purchased it from lalithamma through Ex. Bl, dated 17-5-1988. The appellant, on the one hand, and the respondent, on the other hand, claimed that they are in possession of the respective properties purchased by them. The Trial court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter-claim of the appellant/defendant, through its judgment dated 11-9-1997. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a. S. No. 52 of 1997. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court through its judgment dated 11-11-2004. Hence, this second appeal by the appellant. ( 3 ) SRI B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court, both as to the genuinity of Exs. Bl and B2, as well as the lack of coherence, on the part of the respondent herein, as to the suit claim; without any basis. He contends that though the documents exs. Bl and B2 are registered, and Ex. Bl and B2, as well as the lack of coherence, on the part of the respondent herein, as to the suit claim; without any basis. He contends that though the documents exs. Bl and B2 are registered, and Ex. B2 was executed by none other than PW2, k. Ramulu, the common vendor, the lower appellate Court disbelieved the same, on the strength of mere denial by the said witness. He also submits that a minor discrepancy in the plan, attached to the counter-claim, on the one hand, and Ex. Bl on the other, was treated as the basis for denial of the relief to the appellant. ( 4 ) SRI V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Trial Court committed grave irregularity, in not addressing itself to the individual issues, and dismissing the suit and granting the relief of counter-claim. He contends that the lower appellate Court had undertaken extensive discussion, as to the genuineness of the documents, Exs. Bl and b2, and absence of an) proof, as to possession of the appellant herein over the suit schedule property, and allowed the appeal. ( 5 ) ET is not in dispute that the appellant and respondent claimed their rights, in respect of two separate bits of land, in the same survey number, namely, 234 of farooqnagar Village, from the same vendor, pw2. If the lands covered by Exs. A3 and a5, on the one hand, and Ex. B1, on the other hand, are different and separate pieces of land, there does not exist any difficulty in granting reliefs to the respondent in his suit, and to the appellant, in his counter-claim. None of them claimed any rights against the property purchased by the other. However, if there is any overlapping of these two pieces of land, the necessity arises for the Court to resolve the same, particularity, in the context of the fact that the appellant herein made a counter-claim for the relief of declaration of title. The Trial Court framed as many as 7 issues, as under:1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed? 2. Whether defendant is owner of suit land? 3. Whether plaintiff is in exclusive possession of suit land? 4. Whether defendant is in possession of suit land? 5. Whether defendant is entitled to declaration as prayed for? The Trial Court framed as many as 7 issues, as under:1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed? 2. Whether defendant is owner of suit land? 3. Whether plaintiff is in exclusive possession of suit land? 4. Whether defendant is in possession of suit land? 5. Whether defendant is entitled to declaration as prayed for? ( 6 ) WHETHER the counter-claim as set by defendant is not maintainable? ( 7 ) WHETHER sketch filed by defendant is correct? 6. On behalf of the respondent herein, pws. 1and 2 were examined. PW1 is the husband of the respondent, and PW2 is K. Ramulu, the vendor in Exs. A2, A3 and B2. The documents Ex. A1 to A23 were marked. On behalf of the appellant herein, DWs. 1 to 4 were marked and Exs. Bl to B6 were marked. Having framed 7 independent issues, the Trial Court has chosen to deal with all of them, in a bundle. 7. In this regard, it needs to be noted that there is a definite purpose underlying the exercise of framing of issues. Each issue has its own bearing on the ultimate adjudication of a suit, and such issues are to be addressed to, by the parties as well as the Court, through evidence and pleadings, which is relevant for each of them. Though there is nothing in law, which prohibits the court from discussing some of the issues together; in the matters of this nature, discussing all the issues together would defeat the very purpose of framing them. For example, the evidence that is needed to sustain the claim of the respondent herein, for the relief of injunction (Issue No. l), is substantially different from the one, which is needed to record a finding on the issue, touching on the declaration of title of the appellant herein, over the property claimed by him (Issue No. 2 ). There does not exist anything common for these two issues. An attempt to address both of them together, would certainly result in an imperfect finding, in relation to either, or both of them. ( 8 ) THE lower appellate Court ought to have rectified this, either by remanding the matter to the Trial Court, or by undertaking the discussion on individual issues, by itself. An attempt to address both of them together, would certainly result in an imperfect finding, in relation to either, or both of them. ( 8 ) THE lower appellate Court ought to have rectified this, either by remanding the matter to the Trial Court, or by undertaking the discussion on individual issues, by itself. Instead, it framed two points and recorded findings to the effect that the respondent established her claim for injunction, whereas the appellant herein failed to prove his entitlement for declaration of title. No endeavour was made to examine, as to whether there exists any overlapping between the two plots, referred to above, or whether they are independent of each other. ( 9 ) IN this background, this Court is of the view, that the matter needs to be remanded to the Trial Court. It is true that the suit was filed way back in 1989, and it would be difficult for the parties, if they are relegated to the initial stage. Though it is advisable that the matters are given a finality, within the earliest possible time, the necessity to ensure perfection and just conclusions, cannot be ignored, in that anxiety. Any further discussion on the merits of the matter is likely to have its impact on the proceedings, on remand. ( 10 ) HENCE, the second appeal is allowed, and the judgments and decrees passed in A. S. No. 52 of 1997 as welt as the one in O. S. No. 122 of 1989, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions judge, Mahabubnagar, and the Junior Civil judge, Shadnagar, respectively, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal. It is directed that the Trial Court shall deal with the issues, which are already framed, separately or by clubbing interrelated issues. It shall also discuss the following additional issue viz. , whether the sale deed Ex. B2, said to have been executed by PW2, is genuine, and if so, whether the land covered by Ex. B2, on the one hand, and the one covered by ex. A2, as rectified by Ex. A3, and Ex. A5, on the other hand, are different, or whether there exists any overlapping. , whether the sale deed Ex. B2, said to have been executed by PW2, is genuine, and if so, whether the land covered by Ex. B2, on the one hand, and the one covered by ex. A2, as rectified by Ex. A3, and Ex. A5, on the other hand, are different, or whether there exists any overlapping. ( 11 ) IN case, the said pieces of land are found to be different from each other, both the parties shall be entitled to be granted perpetual injunction, for the respective extends. On the other hand, if there exists any overlapping, the Trial Court shall take necessary steps to resolve the same, if necessary, by appointing a departmental surveyor. The suit itself shall be disposal of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It shall be open to the parties to lead such evidence, as they intend to, but they shall ensure that the matter is not prolonged unduly. There shall be no order as to costs.