JUDGMENT L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.—Plaintiff is in appeal challenging the concurrent judgments passed by both the Courts. The plaintiff/ appellant had filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. Item No. 3 of the suit property is the land measuring 1.0 guntas in survey-No. 126/5. According to the appellant, defendants 4 and 6 who have got adjoining lands on the northern side of item No. 3 property, have encroached the property which belongs to the appellant. The plaintiffs father had purchased the land measuring 20 guntas from his vendor by name Chikkaiah as per Ex. P1-sale deed dated 5.8.1949. Though plaintiffs father Mugegowda purchased only 20 guntas of land from his vendor Chikkaiah, 5 guntas of land which is karab land also came alongwith 20 guntas of land and he is in possession of 25 guntas of land from the date of purchase. He has produced Ex. P2-kharab chit and Ex. P3-akar band extract wherein the total extent of land has been referred as 25 guntas. Ex. P7-the RTC extract also reveals total extent of land as 25 guntas. Ex. P8-Index of land also reflects the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of 25 guntas of land. From the date of sale deed marked as Ex. P1, the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question. When the suit schedule land was got surveyed in the year 1984, the plaintiff noticed the encroachment of the suit land. Hence he filed an application and got surveyed and fixed hudbusth stones to the suit schedule lands by a surveyor. He also filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the land to the extent, of 25 guntas and also sought for possession of the encroached land from the defendants. Specifically, it is urged that even defendants 4 and 6 have encroached about 10 guntas of land in survey No. 128/5. 2. The defendants filed written statement and it is contended that there is no encroachment made and the plaintiff has purchased only 20 guntas of land and not 25 guntas. The defendants had purchased the land measuring 34 guntas from their vendor Ramu on 21.4.1980 as per Ex. D6. The portion of land which was purchased by the defendants is marked as ABHI, which was wrongly shown. The defendants had purchased the land measuring 34 guntas from their vendor Ramu on 21.4.1980 as per Ex. D6. The portion of land which was purchased by the defendants is marked as ABHI, which was wrongly shown. According to the sale deed executed by Chikkaiah in favour of Ramu, it is actually the portion marked as DCHI in survey No. 126/2c. The alleged encroached portion of 10 guntas does not exactly fall in survey No. 125/6 and it has got independent survey number as 126/2c. The vendors of the plaintiff and defendants by name Bokkaiah and Chikkaiah were owning adjacent lands measuring 24 guntas and 25 guntas, respectively. Bokkalah sold the land owned by him in favour of Chikkaiah and thus Chikkaiah became owner and was in possession of both the lands. On 5.8.1949. Chikkaiah sold a portion of the land to the plaintiffs father Mugegowda retaining the remaining portion. As per Ex. P1, what was sold to plaintiffs father by his vendor Chikkaiah is only 20 guntas of land and it is unjust claim made by the plaintiff in respect of 10 guntas of land alleged to have been encroached by the defendants. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant in order to substantiate the claim of encroachment of 10 guntas of land by defendants 4 and 8 has relied on Ex. D4-the petition filed by the defendants before the Tahasildar to locate their land, in survey No. 126/2c. Virtually, land in survey No. 126/2c is not existing in the revenue records. The plaintiff has got examined one Shivarame Gowda as P.W. 2 who has deposed in his chief examination that the plaintiff had planted coconut trees in the suit schedule property. The survey officers while fixing the hudbusth stones, the defendants have got removed the stone saying that the land does not belong to the father of the plaintiff. The Trial Court has committed an error in relying on the written statement filed alongwith sketch. The resurvey conducted in the year 1959 and 60 had also disclosed the total extent of land as 25 guntas, including karab land to the extent of 5 guntas. Ex. D4-petition made by the defendants to the Tahasildar to locate the survey No. 126/2c is only to knock of the property measuring 10 guntas of land out of the schedule land in item No. 3, which belongs to the plaintiff. In Ex. Ex. D4-petition made by the defendants to the Tahasildar to locate the survey No. 126/2c is only to knock of the property measuring 10 guntas of land out of the schedule land in item No. 3, which belongs to the plaintiff. In Ex. D4, the petition made to the Tahasildar, Kanakapur, it, is stated at paragraph 2 as “Chikkaiah owned about 25 guntas of land and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property as stated above towards the southern side”. This very admission made by the defendants itself is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the land by virtue of Ex. P1. By relying on evidence of DW6, who is none other than the vendor of the defendant by name Ramu, in his cross-examination has deposed that Chikkegowda had marked the property in survey No. 126/2 to the extent of 24 guntas. In the written statement, the defendants have taken a plea of adverse possession since they are in possession for more than 12 years. The said contention, of the defendants to counter the claim of the plaintiff who is the real owner of the suit, schedule land. Because the claim of adverse possession is against the true owner. When Ex. P1 is relied by both the Courts for the purpose that 20 guntas of land has been conveyed to the plaintiffs father. Both the Courts have stopped there itself without examining further revenue records which included 5 guntas of land. The Trial Court also committed an error in not considering the application made under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint to contend that his father had purchased 25 guntas of land from Chikkaiah. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted to set aside the order passed by both the Courts by allowing this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh and another, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1749 in order to substantiate that High Court can interfere in the concurrent judgments under Section 100 of CPC where it has found substantial concurrent error committed by both the Courts. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalu Ram Ahuja and another vs. Delhi Development Authority and another, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 896 and also the judgment in the case of Boodimeaddy Chandrmah and others vs. Arigbla Laxmi and another, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7062 and contended that despite of the fact that judgments are concurrent in nature and in view of the fact that both the Courts have committed an error in not considering the evidence and materials on record, this Court can interfere. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants denied the encroachment made by the defendants and it is submitted that what has been purchased by the plaintiff is 20 guntas as per Ex. P1 and claiming 10 guntas with an allegation that the defendants have encroached the property is false. In fact, they are in possession from the date of purchase from their vendor Bokkaiah through sale deed dated 21.4.1980 as per Ex. D6 to the extent of 24 guntas of land in survey No. 126/2. The alleged encroachment of the plaintiffs land has come alongwith sale deed dated Ex. D6 and they are in possession continuously and since there was a dispute with regard to the said property, an application-Ex. D4 was made to the Tahasildar to relocate the extent of 10 guntas in survey No. 128/2c. Hence the suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, he submitted to dismiss the appeal. Both the Courts have concurrently dismissed the case of the plaintiff. Since the disputed question of fact has been answered by both the Courts, this Court cannot interfere. The property marked as ABCD in the sketch measuring 24 guntas of land belongs to Bukkaiah. He was in possession and enjoyment of the above property. Property marked as DCHGEF measuring 25 guntas belongs to one Chikkaiah and he was in possession and enjoyment. Bukkaiah was in possession of portion marked as ABCD in the sketch and Chikkaiah was in possession of portion marked as DCHGEF. Accordingly, what has been purchased by the defendants is entirely different and at no point of time encroachment was made. The land sold to Ramu by Bukkaiah measures 34 guntas. In the sale deed due to bona fide mistake and without knowing correct survey number and measurement, it was wrongly written. Accordingly, what has been purchased by the defendants is entirely different and at no point of time encroachment was made. The land sold to Ramu by Bukkaiah measures 34 guntas. In the sale deed due to bona fide mistake and without knowing correct survey number and measurement, it was wrongly written. The said Ramu was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land shown, as ABHI and the same has been sold in favour of the defendants. From the date of purchase, the defendants are in possession. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the defendants have taken contention of adverse possession of the suit land. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Yusuf Ali, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 74 and submitted that in a case of concurrent judgments, the power to scrutiny can only be had in very exceptional circumstances and upon proper circumspection and the second appeal is permissible only when findings are based on misreading of evidence. He has also relied on the judgment In the case of Gurudev Kaur and others vs. Kaki and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 and submitted that in view of the guidelines of the Supreme Court, the present ease is not an exceptional case since the appellant has not made any remarks in the findings of the both the Courts. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the appeal. 7. The Trial Court has framed issues namely whether the plaintiff is entitled to the schedule land and secondly whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession of encroached portion, if any, in the suit schedule properties? Both the issues have been answered in negative and accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 8. The First Appellate Court in the appeal also framed similar points for consideration and answered against the plaintiff. Hence this appeal. 9. The Trial Court, while answering two issues 1 and 2 has examined Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. Ex. P2 does not reveal any kharab land in survey No. 126/5, where it is further observed that in the absence of mention of any karab land in Ex. P2, how the plaintiff could claim 5 guntas karab land in survey No. 126/5. In view of the said observation, Ex. P2 has been examined. In Ex. P2 and Ex. P3. Ex. P2 does not reveal any kharab land in survey No. 126/5, where it is further observed that in the absence of mention of any karab land in Ex. P2, how the plaintiff could claim 5 guntas karab land in survey No. 126/5. In view of the said observation, Ex. P2 has been examined. In Ex. P2, karab has not been referred. According to the plaintiff by that time, karab was removed and extent of land has been referred as 20 guntas. But while examining Ex. P3, at relevant column No. 4 for survey No. 128/5, it is referred as 25 guntas. Ex. P2 is dated 6.6.1984 and the said document was issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, Ramanagar and by that time, karab was already removed. On the basis of the same, in Ex. P7-RTC for survey No. 126/5 from, the year 1980-81 onwards, the total extent of land in the survey No. 126/5 was referred as 25 guntas. If it were the case of the defendants that plaintiff had 20 guntas of land, the question is as to why in Ex. P3 the extent of land is referred as 25guntas. Exs.P7 and 8 are RFC extracts, where it has been referred as 25 guntas. But the Trial Court in respect of Ex. P7 has held that there is over writing, when the documents available on record to speak. Exs.P8 and P9 are also scrutinised to find out whether the land owned by plaintiff included 5 guntas of karab land or not. 10. On behalf of the parties, 2 witnesses have been examined for the plaintiff and 6 witnesses for the defendants and sufficient materials from Exs. P1 to P10 and Exs. D1 to 17 have been produced and marked. Exs. D14 to 17 are index of land and records of rights in respect of land in survey No. 126/1 and 126/2, 2c and 126/5 and relying on the said documents, it is submitted that if according to the plaintiff survey No. I26/2c is not existing, the same submission is based on the evidence in view of the documents referred above. The evidence of P.W. 1 who deposed in his evidence that he is the owner of item No. 3 in. The evidence of P.W. 1 who deposed in his evidence that he is the owner of item No. 3 in. survey No. 126/5 which measures 25 guntas and the defendants 4 and 6 are having adjacent land to survey No. 128/5 towards north. The father of the plaintiff had purchased the property from one Chikkaiah in the year 1949 and in the land in question during the year 1980-81 he had planted about 42 coconut trees and 2 eucalyptus trees and they are yielding. In the cross-examination it has been elicited that land in survey No. 128/2 was marked in favour of the father. Ex. P4 previously belongs to Chikkaiah. P.W. 1 has been confronted to Ex. P1 and he answered to a suggestion that what was purchased under Ex. P1 is 21 guntas, The suggestion has been answered in the negative. The 6th defendant is in possession of 34 guntas in Survey No. 126/2 and Survey No. 126/2C. When these are all the evidences available, the trial Court has given much concentration on his evidence in respect of Ex. P.2 about the non-mentioning of kharab land in Survey No. 128/2. What is required to be considered is that when Ex. P.2 was issued there was no step taken for consideration of 5 guntas of karab land and issue of subsequent revenue documents, Ex. P.2 though it is considered, it is true that there is no karab of 5 guntas of land. As submitted by the plaintiff, by the time Ex. P.2 was issued, karab of 5 guntas of land was already regularised in favour of the plaintiff. The same is required to he examined in the light of the subsequent exhibits. The evidence of P.W.2 pertains to the sale made by one Ramu in favour of 6th defendant and it has been opined that he does not know anything about, the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 11. Per contra, Exs.D.14 and D.17, the evidence of the defendants and more particularly Ex. D4-petition made before the Tahsildar and the contention taken particularly in para No. 2 of the said petition are all the materials available to reach to a conclusion. If it were to be the case of the defendants that by virtue of Ex. 11. Per contra, Exs.D.14 and D.17, the evidence of the defendants and more particularly Ex. D4-petition made before the Tahsildar and the contention taken particularly in para No. 2 of the said petition are all the materials available to reach to a conclusion. If it were to be the case of the defendants that by virtue of Ex. D6 the sale deed dated 21.4.1980 the excess of land also came alongwith the suit schedule property, but when the adverse possession was sought in respect, of the suit schedule property, it is for the plaintiff to substantiate about the ownership and the same is required to be examined. The continuous possession, if it was known to the true owner, all have not been properly examined. In these circumstances, I restrain myself from expressing any opinion, which may cause influence while considering the case of the plaintiff. Hence, I deem it fit that this is the case for consideration by the first Appellate Court. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment referred supra relied upon by the learned counsel. I am aware that especially when a finding is recorded on facts by the Courts below normally under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code the question is whether the Courts below have committed an error in reading the evidence. This Court cannot reconsider the same. Accordingly, the substantial, question of law framed by this Court has been answered. Further it is observed that the first Appellate Court is required to consider all the material evidence available on record meticulously and pass appropriate order expeditiously. With these observations, this appeal is allowed. The order of the first. Appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first Appellate Court; for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 13. Both the parties are directed to be present before the first Appellate Court on 22.11.2011 without awaiting further notice.