JUDGMENT : Krishna S. Dixit, J. 1. The civil suit in O.S. No. 193/1992 filed by Sri. Uttaradi Mutt - the Respondent herein for injunctive relief against Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt - the Appellant herein, on being transferred from the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Koppal to that of Gangavathi, having been re-numbered as O.S. No. 74/2010, later after trial was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.06.2011. 2. The appeal in R.A. No. 123/2014 by Sri. Uttaradi Mutt the Respondent herein against the dismissal of the suit, came to be allowed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad and the suit came to be decreed in part on 22.04.2015, the operative portion whereof reads as under: "The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed in part. Subject to the right, if any, of the Defendant Mutt to perform Aradhanas and Poojas of the Vrindavanas in the Suit property, the Defendant is restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction from interfering with the Plaintiff Mutt's possession and enjoyment of the Suit property. It is hereby clarified that the above said raider shall not be construed as declaring the right of the Defendant Mutt to perform Aradhanas and Poojas." 3. Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt being aggrieved filed Regular Second Appeal No. 100446/2015 which came to be partly allowed, remanding the matter to the Trial Court for consideration afresh on 14.11.2017 by setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below. Sri. Uttaradi Mutt having taken the matter in S.L.P. (C) No. 229/2018, which after grant of leave, became Civil Appeal No. 9333/2018. The Apex Court vide order dated 26.09.2018, was pleased to allow the Civil Appeal by setting at naught the judgment and order made in Regular Second Appeal with some observations and remanding the matter to this court with a direction that points for consideration after being framed be sent to the First Appellate Court for taking evidence from both the sides thereon; the said court shall submit its findings and the reasons therefor to this court which shall hear and dispose off the Appeal on that basis. 4. 4. In terms of the above order of the Apex Court and the observations made therein, this matter was heard after granting a few adjournments as sought for by the learned counsel on either side since there was some divergence of views between them as to the points to be framed for the consideration of the court below. 5. The appellant-Sri. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt has filed on 10.12.2018 the following ten draft points for consideration of the Trial Court. 1. Whether the Defendant/Appellant prove that the plaintiff/Respondent by fraud and misrepresentation has suppressed the fact of forfeiture of SY. No. 192 of Anegundi village by Nizam Government, the re-grant order of Raja of Anegundi vide EX P344, the decree passed in OS No. 65/1959-1960 by Munsiff Gangavithi, before the survey authorities while seeking correction of extebt if Survey No. 192 from 14 Acres 7 guntas to 27 Acres 30 guntas on the basis of extinct sale deed Ex P3 by application filed by GPA holder of Plaintiff/Respondent? 2. Whether the Defendant/Appellant proves that the Plaintiff/respondent is legally entitled only to 14 Acres 7 guntas in Sy No. 192 by virtue of re-grant order of Raja of Anegundi vide EX P344, the decree passed in OS No. 65/1959-1960 by Munsiff Gangavithi and rest of the un-surveyed land vests with the Government? 3. Whether the Joint Director of land Records Gulbarga exercised undue influence over the Survey authorities Assistant Superintendent of Land Records and Superintendent of Land Records Ballery at the instance of Plaintiff/Respondent as such the extent of Survey No. 192 form 14 Acres 7 Guntas to 27 Acres 30 Guntas was got modified? 4. Whether the survey authorities i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Land Records Raichur, Superintendent of Land Records Bellary and Joint Director of land Records Gulbarga had no jurisdiction to change the extent of Sy No. 192 of Anegundi village noted in the revenue records and such jurisdiction vests only with the revenue authorities? 5. Whether the Tahsildar Gangavithi acted illegally in changing the extent of Survey No. 192 from 14 Acres 7 guntas to 27 Acres 30 guntas on basis of order of Superintendent of Land Records Bellary dated 07-09-1974 and on the letter of Joint Director of land Records Gulbarga dated 8.1.1975? 6. 5. Whether the Tahsildar Gangavithi acted illegally in changing the extent of Survey No. 192 from 14 Acres 7 guntas to 27 Acres 30 guntas on basis of order of Superintendent of Land Records Bellary dated 07-09-1974 and on the letter of Joint Director of land Records Gulbarga dated 8.1.1975? 6. Whether the survey sketch prepared by Assistant Superintendent of Land Records Raichur showing the course of Tungabhadra river at Nava Brundavan Gaddi is incorrectly shown as South to North and on account of undue influence exercised by the Plaintiff/respondent over survey authorities which is contrary to village survey map of Anegundi Village of the year 1930, the reprint map in the year 1995 and the sketch prepared by Hampi Development authority which shows the flow of Tungabhadra river at Nava Brundavan gaddi is Southwest to Northeast? 7. Whether the Brundavana's in Nava Brundavan Gaddi are situated outside 14 Acres 7 guntas of land which is held by plaintiff/Respondent on the basis of the re-grant order vide Ex P344? 8 Whether the Defendant/Appellant proves that Ex P16(a) are interpolated and tampered by the plaintiff/Respondent showing the document as the year 1768 instead of 1368 sahka equallent 1447 AD showing the Brundavan of Sri. HH Vyasa Rajaru in Nava Brundavan Gaddi is a false version since the said pontiff was alive in 1447 AD? 9. Whether the Defendant/Appellant proves that certified copies of the sale deed Ex P3 & Ex P4 are mutually inconstant and concocted. In one certified copy the age of vendor Vakil Krishna Rao is shown as 60 years and in another Copy is shown as 70 years. Therefore the certified copies of the sale deed has to be rejected as in admissible in evidence as being forged and fabricated. 10. Whether the Defendant/Appellant proves that the owner ship of Plaintiff mutt over Sy. No. 192 by virtue of Ex P3 & P4 becomes doubt full to be believed as they are forged and fabricated and because if Satyadhyana Teertharu had purchased in the year 1916 his name or vendors name i.e. Vakil Krishna Rao name should have been reflected in revenue records whereas the revenue records disclose the name of Veera Ramaraj till the year 1935 in the revenue register and name of the Uttaradui Mutt is mutated only after dubious and disputed survey in the year 1975? 6. Similarly, the respondent-Sri. 6. Similarly, the respondent-Sri. Uttaradi Mutt herein has also filed its draft points for consideration on 19.12.2018, which read as under: (a) Whether any of the documents that are now sought to be produced under three applications for production of additional evidence dated 07.01.2012, 05.01.2015 and 20.01.2015 do exist as a matter of fact, are genuine, and if the said documents have now been proved in a manner known to law? (b) If the document or documents satisfy all the requirements of point (a) whether any of the documents are relevant to any of the issues framed by the Lower Appellate Court and if so to what issue? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Mutt submits that the points which he has framed may be accepted for referring to the Court below. Per contra, learned Senior Advocates Sri. Jayavittal Rao Kolar and Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the advocate on record for the respondent-Mutt oppose the said submission stating that only the three points enumerated in the preceding paragraph are relevant, going by the text of Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. and that the points elaborately framed by the appellant side cannot be accepted without causing violence to the said and other kindred provisions. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. I have perused the Appeal Papers and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.09.2018. 9. Relevant part of paragraph 11 of the said judgment reads as under: "11...........We make it amply clear that by allowing the three applications filed by the Respondent/Defendant Under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, it would not follow that the additional documents/additional evidence can be straightaway exhibited rather, the Respondent would have to not only prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents but also the contents thereof, as may be required by law." Relevant part of paragraph 18 reads as under: "18. [...] it would be appropriate that the High Court frames the points on which additional evidence could be adduced by the Respondent/Defendant and call upon the First Appellate Court to record additional evidence and also consider the question of genuineness and authenticity of the additional evidence, including as to whether the contents thereof have been proved by the party relying thereon, and thereafter, to return the evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and reasons thereof within the prescribed time." Similarly, a pertinent part of paragraph 19 reads as under: "19........The High Court shall frame points on which the additional evidence is allowed to be produced and direct the First Appellate Court to take the additional evidence on record in accordance with law and then return the evidence to the High Court together with its findings thereon and the reasons thereof, within the prescribed time. Such directions be issued by the High Court expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. On receipt of the said report from the First Appellate Court, the High Court may then consider the Second Appeal on the substantial questions of law already framed or such other substantial questions of law that may arise for its consideration." 10. The above observations of the Apex Court give sufficient indication as to what should be the points to be referred to the Court below. Keeping in view the said observations and also the text of Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. in my considered view, only the following points need to be referred to the Court below: (i) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e. Sri. Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves the existence, authenticity/genuineness and contents of the documents that are permitted to be produced by allowing its three Applications in I.A. Nos. 5, 11 and 12? (ii) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e. Sri. Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves that any of the documents that are permitted to be produced by allowing the aforesaid three Applications, is/are spurious, concocted or fraudulently obtained? (iii) Whether any of the documents that are already part of the record are genuine or spurious or obtained by fraud? (iv) What is the effect of the findings to be recorded by the First Appellate Court concerning the aforesaid points (i), (ii) and (iii), on the issues framed in the main proceedings, by both the Courts below i.e. the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court? 11. (iv) What is the effect of the findings to be recorded by the First Appellate Court concerning the aforesaid points (i), (ii) and (iii), on the issues framed in the main proceedings, by both the Courts below i.e. the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court? 11. It is open to either of the parties to confront the witness's in the cross-examination with any other documents that are part of record or not, and that are a subject matter of aforesaid I.A. Nos. 5, 11 and 12, or not. 12. It is needless to mention that the parties to the proceedings shall have the right of rebuttal to the extent the circumstances admit, subject to all just exceptions and limitations, in accordance with law. 13. In the above circumstances, the First Appellate Court i.e. the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, shall proceed to try the aforesaid points, and shall return the evidence to this court together with his findings thereon and the reasons therefor, within a period of four months, keeping in view the observations made herein above and also in the order dated 26.09.2018 entered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9333/2018. 14. It is needless to mention that the learned Judge shall have all incidental powers as are required for accomplishing the task entrusted to it, in accordance with law.