ORDER : This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, in O.S.No.10/2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status/title in the trial Court. 3. Facts in brief are: The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed O.S.No.10/2014 for partition and separate possession against the defendants. The subject matter of the suit are the properties bearing: (i). Sy.No.No.94/1 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas inclusive of 11 guntas of kharab assessed at Rs.1.87 paise, sisutated at Belgumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. (ii). 0.28.05 guntas assessed at Rs.4.68 paise out of land bearing Sy.No.No.5/2 measuring 2 acres 6 guntas at Belagumba village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk. 4. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 are the children of Ramaiah and Lakshmamma. The suit schedule property item No.1 was purchased by Lakshmamma under registered sale deed dated 26.09.1979. item No.2 of suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are innocents, ignorant and illiterate persons having no worldly knowledge, defendants No.1 to 4 taking undue advantage of the same, played fraud in obtaining the registered relinquishment deed from the plaintiffs on 28.2.2013 in the pretext of dividing the suit properties by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs had no intention to execute the relinquish deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 4, the same is an outcome of fraud, coercion and undue influence played on the plaintiffs. The defendants No.1 to 4 had got executed an agreement of sale in favour of 5th defendant on 14.11.2013 in order to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendants colluding with each other made efforts to register the sale deeds in favour of 5th defendant. As the said aspects came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, Panchayath was convened to reconcile the dispute between the parties which is not materialized. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that no amount as alleged in the relinquishment deed was received by them. 5. The defendants No.1 to 4 appeared before the Court and filed their written statement 5th defendant remained absent and was placed exparte. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that no amount as alleged in the relinquishment deed was received by them. 5. The defendants No.1 to 4 appeared before the Court and filed their written statement 5th defendant remained absent and was placed exparte. The defendants admitted the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 and the acquisition of suit properties item No.1 and item No.2 as the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. It was contended that the plaintiffs having executed the relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2013, at their own will and wish by receiving a sum of Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees six lakhs only) from defendants No.1 to 4 have lost their right, title and interest over the suit properties. Defendants No.1 to 4 for their legal necessities and for repayment of the hand loans had jointly agreed to sell the suit properties to the defendant by executing the registered agreement of sale dated 14.11.2013. On the advanced sale consideration amount received from the 5th defendant, the plaintiffs demanded further money from the defendants No.1 to 4 which was refused. Hence, with a dishonest intention, the plaintiffs have filed the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether plaintiffs prove that themselves and defendants No.1 to 4 are members of Hindu Undivided joint family and in joint possession of suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Registered relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2013 is outcome of fraud, coercion and undue influence? 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for? 4. What order or decree? And answered as under: Issue No.1 In the Negative Issue No.2 In the Negative Issue No.3 In the Negative Issue No.4 As per the final order.” 7. The 1st plaintiff examined as PW1 and marked ExsP1 to Ex.P11 documents and the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW2. On behalf of defendants No.1 to 4, 4th defendant was examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D5. One B.T.Kumbaiah, witness to the relinquishment deed was examined as DW2, one Shri.G.Chikkanna, document writer was examined as DW3. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are in appeal. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Subba Rao representing learned Counsel Sri. One B.T.Kumbaiah, witness to the relinquishment deed was examined as DW2, one Shri.G.Chikkanna, document writer was examined as DW3. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are in appeal. 8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Subba Rao representing learned Counsel Sri. Satheesha K.N., appearing for the plaintiffs contended that the trial Court failed to consider the material evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs in support of their plea that relinquishment deed, Ex.D1 was the result of fraud and consequently, the same ought to have been setaside decreeing the plaintiffs’ suit as prayed for. It was contended that the plaintiffs are illiterate and ignorant persons who have no worldly knowledge. It is contended that none of their well wishers viz., their husbands and children have attested the documents. The defendants No.1 to 4 took the plaintiffs to the Subregistrar’s office on the pretext of changing the khatha, without disclosing or reading the contents of Ex.D1, got the signature on Ex.D1. No satisfactory proof was placed on record by the defendants to show the payment of Rs.6 lakhs to the plaintiffs. These vital aspects were not properly examined and considered by the trial Court. It was further contended that the relinquishment deed could not have been treated as a release or relinquishment of the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit properties as the said document does not disclose the same. Non-consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has overlooked the contradictions found in the evidence of DWs 1 to 3 as the same are not material contradictions and erred in dismissing the suit without considering the probabilities. Thus, it was contended that Ex.D1 is a fraudulent document which do not confer any right, title on the defendants 1 to 4 to alienate the suit properties. 9. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following Judgments: (i). Union of India V/s. K.V.Lakshman and others, (2016) 13 SCC 124 ; (ii). Mst.Kharbuja Kuer V/s. Jangbahadur Rai and others, ( AIR 1963 SC 1203 ); (iii). Mst.Sethani V/s. Bhana,( AIR 1993 SC 956 ); (iv). Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and another V/s. Pratima Maity and others, ( AIR 2003 SC 4351 ); and (v). Union of India V/s. K.V.Lakshman and others, (2016) 13 SCC 124 ; (ii). Mst.Kharbuja Kuer V/s. Jangbahadur Rai and others, ( AIR 1963 SC 1203 ); (iii). Mst.Sethani V/s. Bhana,( AIR 1993 SC 956 ); (iv). Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and another V/s. Pratima Maity and others, ( AIR 2003 SC 4351 ); and (v). A.Venkappa Bhatta and others V/s. Gangamma and others,(AIR 1988 KERALA 133). 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material on record of the compilation of evidence which has been produced by the appellants. 11. The evidence of the case is examined (Copy of which is made available to the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant). Indisputably, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the children of Ramaiah and Lakshmamma. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by Lakshmamma under the registered sale deed dated 26.09.1979 and item No.2 of the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. Further, it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have executed the registered relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2013 releasing/relinquishing their right and title over the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. But the allegation is that, the said relinquishment deed at Ex.P10 was obtained by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 by playing fraud, coercion and undue influence on the plaintiffs, taking undue advantage of the innocence, ignorance and illiteracy. To establish the same, the plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1 and PW2, marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of the said witnesses who have reiterated the plaint averments feigning innocence and illiteracy. It is also their case that the amount of Rs.6 Lakhs was not paid to them as reflected in the relinquishment deed. To rebut the said evidence of the plaintiffs, defendants got examined three witnesses – DW1 is the 4th defendant, DW2 is one of the witnesses to the relinquishment deed and DW3 is the document writer at Subregistrar office, Tumakuru [scribe]. The testimony of DW2 and DW3 are relevant to examine the allegations of the plaintiffs. DW2 has stated in the cross-examination that 3 to 4 Panchayath meetings were held at Ramaiah’s residence. The testimony of DW2 and DW3 are relevant to examine the allegations of the plaintiffs. DW2 has stated in the cross-examination that 3 to 4 Panchayath meetings were held at Ramaiah’s residence. The plaintiffs and their spouses had come at that time and they are also attended the said meetings. Defendant No.4 was present at that time. The plaintiffs demanded the money to release their rights over the suit properties. Hence, defendant Nos.1 to 4 agreed to pay the money. Initially both the plaintiffs had demanded for Rs.10 lakhs and the same not being agreed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4, plaintiffs demanded Rs.8 lakhs for which also, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not heed. The plaintiffs demanded for Rs.6 lakhs and the same was accepted by the defendant Nos.1 to 4. This witness has categorically sated that he has witnessed the execution of deed of Release of Rights by the plaintiffs. The suggestion put to the said witness as regards, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not paid Rs.6 lakhs, is wholly denied. Nothing positive is elicited by the plaintiffs from this witness to deny the receipt of Rs.6 lakhs by them and the fraudulent nature of the relinquishment deed. DW2 has admitted that he has put his signature to Ex.P10 relinquishment deed as the witness. DW3 document writer, Sub-registrar office, Tumakuru was the scribe of the document Ex.P10. This witness has deposed that the plaintiffs have received Rs.6 lakhs in cash from the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the presence of him and other witnesses, before affixing their signature/thumb impression to the relinquishment deed. The said deed was prepared on the information given by the parties. The stamp papers were purchased by the plaintiffs and handed over to him. It is at the request made by the plaintiffs, the relinquishment deed was drafted on 28.02.2013 and the same was read over to the plaintiffs, after receipt of Rs.6 lakhs, both the plaintiffs and witnesses have signed Ex.P10. 12. The evidence of DW2 and DW3 indicates that the plaintiffs have executed the relinquishment deed as per Ex.D1, relinquishing their right, title and interest of the joint family properties on their own will and volition receiving an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from defendants 1 to 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Ex.D1 (Ex.P10) was obtained by the defendants 1 to 4 fraudulently. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Ex.D1 (Ex.P10) was obtained by the defendants 1 to 4 fraudulently. Except the ipse dixit statement made by the plaintiffs, no other independent witness was examined nor any cogent documentary evidence was placed to substantiate the same. The allegations remained unproved. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 4 proved their case by examining the witness to the document DW1 as well as the scribe, DW.2 considering the probabilities and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the defendants 1 to 4 are more probable than the allegations of the plaintiffs. Subsequent to the execution of the relinquishment deed by the plaintiffs, the khata and pahani of the suit properties were mutated in the names of defendants 1 to 4. RTC extracts were also changed. The plaintiffs have not made any attempt to challenge the said mutation entries. In such circumstances, the joint family status of defendants 1 to 4 and plaintiffs was severed by execution of the relinquishment deed receiving their share in the joint family properties by way of cash. Since their joint family status is severed the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the suit properties deserves to be rejected. 13. As regards the relief to cancel the relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2013 registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Tumkuru, in Vol No.TMK4/00595/1314 of Book No.IV stored in CD No.TMKD481 dated 7.11.2013, also requires to be rejected since the plaintiffs failed to prove that the said relinquishment deed was the outcome of fraud, coercion and undue influence. 14. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants placed much emphasis on the illiteracy and ignorance of the plaintiffs. It was also argued that the husbands of the plaintiffs are not the signatories to the relinquishment deed as the attesting witnesses or the witnesses. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mst.Kharbuja Kuer (supra). It was also argued that the husbands of the plaintiffs are not the signatories to the relinquishment deed as the attesting witnesses or the witnesses. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mst.Kharbuja Kuer (supra). The said judgment was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the context of the plaintiff who was the widow of Rameshwar Rai pleading that her husband and defendant No.1 therein effected partition of the family property in or about 1924, that after the partition her husband was in the exclusive possession, after his death she and her mother-in-law continued to be in possession of the said property, that they being pardanashin ladies executed a document in favour of the 1st defendant, believing it to be a power of attorney. That subsequently they came to know it was maintenance deed containing false recitals. In the said context, it was held that there was sufficient material to hold that the 1st defendant, on whom the burden laid, not only did not establish that it was executed by the plaintiff with the knowledge of its contents and the plaintiff and her mother-in-law put their thumb marks under the impression that it was power of attorney. It was observed that the High Court erroneously interfered with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the first two courts. But in the present case, the evidence on record affirmatively and conclusively establishes that the deed was not only executed by the plaintiffs, but was explained to them and was really understood by them. The circumstances establishes that the deed was not signed under the duress but was from the free and independent will of the plaintiffs. Yet another judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in the case of Mst.Sethani (supra), wherein, it was so clear from the certified copy thereof that no consideration passed at the time of the sale. Nobody from the registration office was examined to explain the sale. No evidence was led by the respondent to discharge the onus that the sale deed was executed under no undue influence, even though the vendor was old, blind, illiterate and tribal woman totally at the mercy of the respondent, with whom she was living till her death. Nobody from the registration office was examined to explain the sale. No evidence was led by the respondent to discharge the onus that the sale deed was executed under no undue influence, even though the vendor was old, blind, illiterate and tribal woman totally at the mercy of the respondent, with whom she was living till her death. As aforesaid, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 herein, have established that the contentions of the plaintiffs being except allegations unproved. Hence, the aforesaid judgments are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In the case of Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul (supra), the executant of the settlement deed was more than 100 years of age at the time of alleged execution of the deed. He was paralytic and his mental and physical conditions were not in order. He was practically bedridden with paralysis and that his LTM was affixed on the document, there was no witness who could substantiate the same. That being the position, the deed was declared as void and invalid. In that context, it was held that the age or capacity of the person conferring the benefit and nature of the benefit are of very great importance. It is always obligatory for the donor/beneficiary under the document to prove due execution of the document in accordance with law, even dehors the reasonableness or otherwise of the transaction to avail all the benefit or claim rights under the document irrespective of the fact whether such party is the defendant or plaintiff before the Court. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. What is required to be established is that the executants were unable to comprehend the nature of the document or contents thereof i.e. there was mere physical act of the executant involved, but not the mental act. No such evidence is placed on record by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1, aged about 50 years has affixed her thumb impression and plaintiff No.2 aged about 44 years has signed the relinquishment Deed Ex.P10. Plaintiffs have admitted the execution of Ex.P1 but their plea of coercion and undue influence is not proved. As against the same, defendants have proved the document and statement of consideration as mentioned in document by witnesses. 16. Plaintiffs have admitted the execution of Ex.P1 but their plea of coercion and undue influence is not proved. As against the same, defendants have proved the document and statement of consideration as mentioned in document by witnesses. 16. As regards the power of the Court under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC, the learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.V.Lakshman and others (supra), contended that the litigants right to be heard on facts and law in first appeal and the same cannot be disposed of in limine at the time of the admission. It is trite that the right of first appeal is a valuable legal right of the litigant. An appeal under Section 96 of CPC lies only from a decree. Order 41 of CPC sets forth the procedure for considering the appeals filed under Section 96 of CPC. The Hon’ble High Court Rules, 1959 contemplates the practice and procedure to be followed by the High Court. Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC deals with the power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to the lower Court. Subrule (4) of Rule 11 has been inserted with effect from 1.2.1977 vide the Amendment Act No.104 of 1976. Rule 11 reads thus: “11. Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court(1) The Appellate Court after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day may dismiss the appeal. (2) If on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. (3) The dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. (4) Where an Appellate Court, not being the High Court, dismisses an appeal under subrule (1), it shall deliver a judgment, recording in brief its grounds for doing so, and a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment.” It is obligatory for the Appellate Court not being a High Court to deliver the judgment recording in brief, the grounds for dismissing the appeal under the said Rule. However, the catena of Judgments laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Courts insists the High Court to record its reasons in brief for dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. The very arguments now canvassed by the learned Counsel for appellants was considered and addressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri.T.S.Channegowda V/s. Sri.H.Thopaiah and another reported in ILR 2015 KAR 2809 wherein it is held as under: “36. Therefore notwithstanding the provision of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is expected to pass a reasoned order even in dismissing the appeal on the first day of hearing at the admission stage in absence of the respondents, to ensure that justice is not only done but appears to have been done. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 11(4) does not do away with its basic obligation of doing justice in deciding rights and liabilities of the contesting parties. When an appeal is dismissed in limine, a brief order giving reasons for dismissal at the preliminary stage should invariably be recorded when the rights of parties are sought to be conclusively determined by any judgment rendered in accordance with sub-Rule (4) of Rule 11, ‘grounds’, though ‘recorded in brief’ must be ‘grounds’ dealing with and disposing of the contentions agitated in the plaint or written statement, and in the memorandum of appeal. The contention orally pressed by Counsel and disposal thereof must be manifested in the face of the judgment. The legislative object of subRule (4) is to make the process of justicing rational, reasonable and accountable and also to short circuit litigative process by a reasoned order, so that the unsuccessful appellant should be in a position to know the merits of his/her case and make up his/her mind either to accept the judgment or challenge the same in a higher forum. 37. By Amendment Act of 1999 the words “sending for the record if it thinks fit so to do” has been omitted. Similarly, the words “without sending notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or its pleader” is also deleted. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature is manifest. It is in tune with the policy of speedy disposal of cases. Similarly, the words “without sending notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or its pleader” is also deleted. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature is manifest. It is in tune with the policy of speedy disposal of cases. Sending for the record, sending notice to the Court from whose decree appeal is preferred and serving notice on the respondent or his pleader would involve considerable time. In cases where there is absolutely no merit in the appeal and without records, without hearing the respondent and his pleader, the appeal could be dismissed, thus the aforesaid obligation on the part of the Court is done away with. 42. Therefore, the statute specifically provides for a stage of admission of appeal both at the High Court level and also at the Lower Appellate Court level. This provision has not been noticed nor put into practice. On the contrary, it is practiced in breach. This is a provision, which is enacted by the Parliament for early judicial intervention by the Judges in Regular First Appeal. It is because of want of early judicial system by the Courts, there is inordinate delay in disposal of these appeals, which normally take anywhere between five to ten years for adjudication. What the Appellate Court has to bear in mind at this stage is, in the Trial Court, the plaintiff had an opportunity to putforth his pleading in detail. The defendant has met the case of the plaintiff by filing a written statement. Issues are framed. Witnesses from both sides are examined, cross-examined in length; many times they are recalled and reexamined in length, Commissions are ordered, expert evidence is obtained, Commissioner’s report is obtained. Then a lengthy argument is adduced citing the statutory provisions as also the judgment of this Court and the Apex Court. Thereafter, the learned Judge, after a hard fought trial, which may sometimes spread over for a period of ten years pronounce the judgment on all issues. Precious judicial time of one member of the Judiciary has been spent in this adjudication process. The object of providing a statutory appeal is to examine whether Judges have erred in deciding the cases. There should be a mechanism for correction of those mistakes. Therefore, statutory right of appeal is provided. Precious judicial time of one member of the Judiciary has been spent in this adjudication process. The object of providing a statutory appeal is to examine whether Judges have erred in deciding the cases. There should be a mechanism for correction of those mistakes. Therefore, statutory right of appeal is provided. It does not mean that in every case, the appeal is to be admitted and kept in cold storage for five years and then decided. What the statute mandates is, at the stage of admission of the appeal if, the learned Judges were to apply their mind and find out from the members of the bar as to what is the error in the judgment, and when the error is pointed out, with their rich experience, they can consider the error as pointed out in the judgment and find out whether there is any substance. If there is no substance in the argument, there is no question of admitting the appeal for hearing. Because of such automatic admission today, the litigants are encouraged to file appeal even though there is no merit. The reason is obvious. The present judicial process comes in handy to enjoy property and money belonging to others. In a suit for recovery of money after a hard fought battle, a decree is passed, the money belonging to the plaintiff is in the hands of the defendant. If he were to be a business man, with that money, he will multiply the money and at the end of the day, after five years or ten years, he does not mind repaying that money. In a suit for recovery of possession or ejectment, the defendant is in possession of the property, in respect of which he has suffered a decree. Because he got into possession at an earlier point of time at a nominal rent, an appeal enables him to continue and enjoy the property, thus depriving the decree holder – the plaintiff from enjoying the possession of the property and some times, from enjoying the property during his life time. In the case of partition suits, where relationships are admitted and nature of property is also admitted, and if appeals are filed against the preliminary decree, the defendants would be in enjoyment of the property belonging to the family. Plaintiff normally is a person, who is excluded from enjoyment of the property. In the case of partition suits, where relationships are admitted and nature of property is also admitted, and if appeals are filed against the preliminary decree, the defendants would be in enjoyment of the property belonging to the family. Plaintiff normally is a person, who is excluded from enjoyment of the property. Some times, the plaintiff may not see the fruits of the decree during his lifetime. Similarly summary disposal even without the assistance of the record is permissible only in a case in which the questions arising for adjudication in the appeal are as such as that perusal of the evidence produced by the parties is unnecessary. Similarly if the question involved is a pure question of law, the view taken by the court of first instance is so unexceptionable and that view is based on earlier judgment of the Court or the Apex Court, and that when the appellate Court sees no reason to differ from the aforesaid law laid down, order of dismissal is the only order that can be passed. Similarly a disposal may also be possible where the facts are not in dispute or where the correctness of the findings on a question of fact recorded by the Court of first instance is not assailed in the appeal. Unsuccessful party in the suit being conscious of the fact that there is no chance of succeeding in the appeal too, still prefers an appeal only to take advantage enuring to him because of working of the judicial system. The members of the bar should also understand their responsibility and if they want speedy disposal of cases, they should also play their role effectively in order to give effect to the provisions enacted by the Parliament.” 17. It is well settled law that the first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case therein is open for the Court of first appeal to deal all the issues and the evidence and the parties have a right to be heard, both on questions of facts and on law. However, we are not impressed by the submissions of the learned Senior counsel that the first appeal cannot be dismissed in limine at the admission stage. However, we are not impressed by the submissions of the learned Senior counsel that the first appeal cannot be dismissed in limine at the admission stage. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad –vSheo Narain Kushwaha and others reported in (2011)6 SCC 456 , as well as this Court in T.S.Channegowda’s case, (supra) categorically held that the High Court is empowered to dismiss the first appeal at the preliminary stage of hearing if there is no merit in the appeal. The said dismissal should be supported by reasons while exercising power under Order 41 Rule 11. 18. We had given opportunity to appellants to produce copy of all documents and evidence of the Trial Court and the learned Counsel for appellants have produced the same for supporting the contention and we have considered the same. We are not satisfied that the relinquishment deed Ex.D1 was an engineered document to deprive the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is discharged by the defendants and plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case. No error found in the appreciation of evidence by the Court below. Under the circumstances, we find that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.V.Lakshman (supra) is of no help to the appellants. 19. For the aforesaid, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. In the result, Appeal stands dismissed.