JUDGMENT : K. Manmadha Rao, J. The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2018, passed in A.S.No.100 of 2011 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, (in short “the first appellate court”) in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.07.2011 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2005 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati (in short “the trial court”). 2. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience. 3. The Appellant herein is the plaintiff; respondents are the defendants before the courts below. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties i.e. Plot No. 45, 46 and 47 and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, followers etc., from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for damages. The averments in the plaint, in brief are as under:- One Beegala Munaswamy was the original owner of Ac.3-00 cents of land comprised to Pimash No.464 and S.No.240/4 of Tiruchanur village accounts. The said One Beegala Munaswamy sold the said property to M. Sathyanararaya Chetty under a registered sale deed, dt. 06-10-1966 and delivered possession of the said property to M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. He prepared lay out on 31-03-1967 and sold plots to several persons. Among them Padmavathamma, D.Narasimhulu Chetty and E. Ramarathnamma purchased plots 45 to 47 respectively under different sale deeds, dt. 28-10-1968 and took possession of the same. The lay out prepared by M. Sathyanararaya Chetty is abutting to the lay out of Deenadayal Naidu. K.C. Venkata Subbaraya Pillai purchased Plot No.44 from the said M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. He in turn sold the same under an agreement of sale in favour of the father of the plaintiff by name K. Narayanaswamy Naidu. He executed a Will in favour of the wife of plaintiff in respect of plot-No.44 and after the death of testator the legatee i.e., the wife of the plaintiff by name Surya Kumari inherited the said property. On 26-08-1996 when the 2nd defendant tried to interfere the possession of the wife of the plaintiff, the wife of plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.636/1996 on the file of 1ST Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Plot No.44. On 26-08-1996 when the 2nd defendant tried to interfere the possession of the wife of the plaintiff, the wife of plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.636/1996 on the file of 1ST Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Plot No.44. The defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.660 of 1996 on the file of the court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Ac.0-23 cents agricultural land by showing wrong boundaries on the basis of fabricated and concocted documents, dated 29-11-1993 and 30-5-1994 purported to be the registered Sale deeds. The said suits were tried jointly and a common Judgment was passed by dismissal of suit in O.S.No.660 of 1996 and the suit in O.S.No.636/1996 was decreed. The plaintiff purchased Plot Nos. 45, 46 and 47 from Padmavathamma, D. Narasimhulu Chetty and successors of E. Ramarathnamma under a registered sale deeds dated 30-10-2003 and took possession of the same by paying valid consideration. The plaintiff leveled the plots by spending Rs.10,000/-and raised zink sheet shed in the month of August, 2004 in Plot No.46 and has obtained electricity service connection. On 27-10-2004 the defendants without having any right demolished the said constructions and caused loss of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiff gave report to the police and they have not taken any action as it is of civil nature. Subsequently Sec. 145 Cr.P.C proceedings were promulgated by the Executive Magistrate. The defendant preferred appeals in A.S.No.85 of 2003 and A.S.No.86 of 2003 against the common Judgment in O.S.No.636 of 1996 and O.S.No.660 of 1996 and the same were allowed. As against the said Judgment the wife the plaintiff preferred second appeals in S.A.No.1662 of 2005 and S.A.No.1663 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court and obtained status quo. The vendor of plaintiff applied for grant ryotwari patta, the proceedings were issued up holding their possession and enjoyment in patta enquiry. The registered lay out sketch of Deenadayal Naidu and the commissioner's sketch in I.A.No.556 of 1996 in O.S.No.636 of 1996 are in total agreement. All the documents that were pressed into service by the defendants are filed in previous legal proceedings. After considering all the documents the Judgment was passed in O.S.No.636 of 1996. The previous suits filed with regard to the injunction, whereas this suit is filed for granting declaration of right and title. All the documents that were pressed into service by the defendants are filed in previous legal proceedings. After considering all the documents the Judgment was passed in O.S.No.636 of 1996. The previous suits filed with regard to the injunction, whereas this suit is filed for granting declaration of right and title. The defendants trying to construct a residential house, the defendants wanted to prevent the plaintiff and they are trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property with an intention to cause further loss. Hence the suit. 5. The defendants filed written statement in the suit by denying all material allegations and contended that plaintiff and his vendors are not in actual possession of the property and they are not perfected their possession by way of adverse possession. Tiruchanur village is Inam village and that one Bandaru Venkatesam Reddy was the Inamdar. One Beegala Munaswamy was the tenant. The said Beegala Munaswamy sold Ac.3-00 cents of land in suit Survey No.240/4 in favour of M. Sathyanararaya Chetty under a registered sale deed dated 06-10-1996 for valid consideration of Rs.2,000/-. Inamdar relinquished his right in favour of said M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. The said M. Sathya nararaya Chetty was granted ryotwari patta in respect of said property by the Inam Deputy Talsildar, Chittoor on 28-09-1992. Prior to granting of patta there several claimants Doopam Rami Reddy, V. Kumara swamy Naidu and others. But their claims were not considered. No appeal was preferred as against the issuance of patta in respect of M. Sathyanararaya Chetty. While granting patta the Inam deputy Tahsildar considered the sales affected by M.Sathyanararaya Chetty for megre extent and it was admitted. The purchase of the vendor of the plaintiff K.C. Subbaraya Pillai was not considered. The said M. Sathyanararaya Chetty sold Ac.O-60 cents out of Ac.3-00 in favour of A. Sudhakar and Muni Reddy for valid consideration under a registered sale deed, dated 29-11-1993 and delivered possession. They said laid house plots by demarcating with stones in the entire land purchased by them. The defendant purchased Ac.0-23 cents out of Ac.0-60 cents from the said A.Sudhakar and Muni Reddy for valid consideration of Rs.46,000/- and took possession of the same. The Revenue inspector, Tirupati rural Mandal also issued possession certificate to the defendant. The defendants dug pits and raised pillars and also lay plinth bheem and they were proceeding for construction by spending huge amount. The Revenue inspector, Tirupati rural Mandal also issued possession certificate to the defendant. The defendants dug pits and raised pillars and also lay plinth bheem and they were proceeding for construction by spending huge amount. The plaintiff raised an objection and that a suit in O.S.No. 636 of 1996 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati was filed in respect of Plot No.44 with concocted documents and this defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 660 of 1996 on the file of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in respect of Ac.0-23 cents. Even prior to purchase by this defendant her vendors A. Sudhakar and Muni Reddy filed O.S.No.553 of 1993 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati against V. Kumaraswamy Naidu unsuccessful claimant before Inam Tribunal for granting patta in his name and the said suit was decreed. The property of M. Sathyanararaya Chetty is adjacent to the land of Deenadayal Naidu in S.No.240/1 on southern side. The said Deenadayal Naidu laid a road on his extreme southern side which leads to the Tiruchanur road on east. The northern boundary claimed by the wife of the plaintiff is the land of Deenadayal Naidu in S.No.240/1. The said boundary is also mentioned in the sale deed of K.C. Venkata Subbaraya pillai on northern side. The plot Nos. 45 to 47 are also adjacent to the land of Deenadayal Naidu. The plan filed by the commissioner who was appointed in I.A.No.556 of 1996 in O.S.No.636/1996 shows that Deenadayal Naidu land is 138 fee away from the said property. Which was admitted by the plaintiff The appeal suits filed against the common Judgment passed in O.S.No.636 of 1996 and O.S.No.660 of 1996 in A.S.No.85 of 2003 and A.S. No. 86 of 2003 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Tirupat was allowed. The very identity, location and boundaries of the documents of the plaintiff are wrong and misleading. The vendor of the plaintiff also filed caveats in the year 1996 itself. Despite construction work and litigation the plaintiff has fully aware an obtained sale deeds after succeeding in court. The measurements of plot Nos. 44 to 47 also will not tally with the existing land on the ground. The vendor of the plaintiff also filed caveats in the year 1996 itself. Despite construction work and litigation the plaintiff has fully aware an obtained sale deeds after succeeding in court. The measurements of plot Nos. 44 to 47 also will not tally with the existing land on the ground. The un-successful pattadars having lost their hope kept quite and that the plaintiff in order to lay a false claim over the property of the defendant got obtained the alleged sale deeds nominally. After granting permanent injunction in favour of the defendants in A.S.No.85 of 2003 on 13-12-2004 and also status-quo was also granted by the Hon'ble High Court in S.A.L.P 1342 of 2004 in S.A.No.1663 of 2004, the plaintiff filed the suit with frivolous false and vexatious documents to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants prays to dismiss the suit 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the absolute owner of plaint "A", "B" and "C" schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff injunction as prayed for? is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.20,000/-towards damages? 4. Whether the plaintiff or his vendors are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any time? 5. Whether the identity of plaint schedule property is in dispute? 6. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the plaint schedule properties? 7. Whether the plaintiff has created sham, nominal collusive and fraudulent documents in the manner as averred in para-26 of written statement? 8. Whether the defendants are entitled for exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/-? 9. To what relief? Additional issues: 1. Whether the vendors under the registered sale deeds dated 29.11.1993 and 30.04.1994 in favour of defendants have got title over S.No.240/4? 2. Whether the said sale deeds are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 7. During the course of trial PWs 1 to 3 examined on behalf of the plaintiff and marked Exs.A-1 to A-84. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 to 4 examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-31. 8. After considering the material available on record, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 to 4 examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-31. 8. After considering the material available on record, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his right, title and possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Assailing the said decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.100 of 2011. The first appellate court has framed the following points for determination in the Appeal : 1. Whether the appellant and respondents have purchased different properties with different boundaries and they are claiming the same property or not? 2. Whether the appellant is claiming the property as against the properties mentioned in his sale deeds and the sale deeds of his vendors or not? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to the discretionary relief of declaration of title and consequential injunction along with damages of Rs.20,000/-or not? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court are factually and legally sustainable or not? 9. The First Appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the appeal on merits on 30.11.2018 by confirming the Judgment and decree of the trial court. Assailing the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellant herein, who is plaintiff before the trial court has filed this Second Appeal, seeking to set aside the decree and Judgment of the first appellate court as well as trial court. 10. This court while admitting the Second Appeal has framed the following substantial question of law, which are as under:- (a) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated by failure to take into consideration admission of DW-1 and DW-5 and also the documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A29 and Ex.A30 and the boundary recitals in Ex.A10 and Ex.A12 and Ex.X1. (b) Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that Ex.A3 is a forged document is contrary to pleading and evidence of respondents. (c) Whether there is any perversity in the Judgments of the appellate court and whether they are liable to be set aside. 11. Heard Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vajjala Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and none represented for the respondents. 12. (c) Whether there is any perversity in the Judgments of the appellate court and whether they are liable to be set aside. 11. Heard Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vajjala Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and none represented for the respondents. 12. During hearing learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff would contend that both the courts failed to appreciate the settled law and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on flimsy grounds. It is contended that the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff purchased the property knowing the fact about the earlier litigation and failure to prove mode of acquisition of right of his vendors and of him that his vendors since have no right and title, they cannot pass better title, than they got, that he has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule property, since is without considering the effect of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced on his behalf, the same is liable to be set aside holding it as non application of judicious mind. 13. It is further contended that the finding of the courts below that about 31 years prior to purchase under Ex.A7, A9 and A11 the site and plot Nos. 45, 46 and 47 were merged in Avilala road that the extents being claimed by the plaintiff are not in existence and that the actual extents available on the ground are not known, since are without appreciating the effect of the documentary evidence made available on record coupled with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. It is also contended that the observation of the courts below that the plot Nos. 45 and 46 are on the southern side to which there was a 30 ft., road and the plot No.47 is on the northern side that there is a 20 ft., road and that these plots are situate between 20 ft., road on the northern side and 30 ft., road on southern side, since is without appreciating the boundaries shown in the respective registered sale deeds Ex.A6 to 11 and Ex.A68, the same is liable to be set aside holding that the same is contrary to the evidence available on record. 15. 15. The courts below ought to have appreciated the fact that the plaintiff has purchased plaint A, B and C schedule properties abutting to each other in Paimashi No. 464, correlated to S.No.240/4 from the lawful vendors under registered sale deeds, in an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents, which was converted into house plots, by preparing a layout plan by M. Satyanarayana Chetty. Further long prior to purchase of plaint schedule plots one K. Narayanaswamy Naidu i.e. father in-law of K. Surya Kumari w/o plaintiff has purchased the adjacent plot No.44 from the erstwhile owner K.C. Venkata Subaraya Pillai. One K. Narayanaswamy Naidu bequeathed the plot No.44, vide a Will dated 31.03.1985 and after his death K. Surya Kumari, has became the owner of the same. 16. Further the courts below ought to have consider the fact that when the defendants have interfered with plaintiff’s possession of plot No.44, K. Surya Kumari filed a suit in O.S.No.636 of 1996, whereas the 2nd defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.660 of 1996 for an extent of Ac. 0.23 cents, which includes plot Nos. 44 to 47. This Court vide common judgment dated 15.09.2008 in S.A.Nos.1662 and 1663 of 2004 given a finding that K. Surya Kumari, the owner of the plot No.44 is in possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of filing of the suit, having upheld the documents relied by her in support of her contention that she is absolute owner of the property, having got marketable title thereof. 17. The courts below did not give any reason on what basis the property mentioned in A, B and C schedules which were identified and found to be correct and tallying with the property of the appellant as well as the report of the commissioner Ex.A 53 and the sketch A2, especially in the light of the evidence of DW-1 and the courts below went wrong conclusion and held that the appellant sites are adjacent to S.No.240/1 and failed to consider Ex.A7 to Ex.A11 and Ex.A68, with Exs. A1, A2, A5, A64, A65 and A67. A1, A2, A5, A64, A65 and A67. Further the observation of the courts below that non issuance of ryotwari patta in favour of the plaintiff and non obtaining of confirmation deed from the original vendor M. Satyanarayana Chetty, the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A7, Ex.A9 and Ex.A11 cannot be given the benefit and that they cannot ensure to the benefit of the appellant, is not correct and it should have been held that Ex.A8, Ex.A10 and Ex.A12 are much earlier documents and they will prevail over Ex.B25 and Ex.B26, which are 25 years later. Therefore the courts below have totally ignored the admissions of DW-1, who categorically stated that he has no objection to pass a decree in respect of A, B and C schedule properties and they are not in existence on land, which is sufficient to decree the suit of the plaintiff. But the courts below passed the judgment and decree beyond the scope of jurisdiction without ventilating the evidence on record. Hence the Second Appeal is liable to be allowed. 18. This court granted several adjournments to hear arguments of the respondents. In spite of several conditional orders, none represented for the respondents. Therefore this Court decided to hear the arguments for disposal of the second appeal. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant replaced on record the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna (dead) by L.Rs and Another”, (2018) 1 SCC 604 wherein it was held as follows : “11. It is a settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first appellate court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the trial court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/ and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first appellate court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference. …. 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808, this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) "3. …. 15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 808, this Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5) "3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 : (2001) 1 SCR 948 , SCC p. 188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram SCC p. 758, para 5.) 5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. In our view, the judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are expected from the court of first appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the high Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law”. In “Vinod Kumar v. Gangadhar”, (2015) 1 SCC 391 wherein it was held as follows: 10. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. (as His Lordship then was the Judge of the Kerala High Court) while deciding the first appeal under Section 96 CPC in Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph, AIR 1969 Ker 316 , reminded the first appellate court of its duty as to how the first appeal under Section 96 should be decided. In his distinctive style of writing and subtle power of expression, the learned Judge held as under: (AIR p. 316, paras 1-2) "1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two courts, has come up here aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit which was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter glibly and briefly, in a few sentences. 2. An appellate court is the final court of fact ordinarily and a therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate court. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt that in the present case the learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they appear to agree with me in this observation." (emphasis supplied) This Court in number of cases while affirming and then reiterating the aforesaid principle has laid down the scope and powers of the first appellate court under Section 96 CPC. 20. In “Union of India and Others v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited”, Civil Appeal No.4702 of 2004 dated 07.01.2014 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly discussed with regard to ownership and possession, which is referred to in Para 38 in the Judgment of the first appellate court, wherein the first appellate court categorically held as follows : “38. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession can succeed only on the strength of his own title and that can be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” 21. Perused the record. 22. The first appellate court given finding with regard to location of the suit property holding that though the boundaries, extents and location are different for the properties of plaintiff and defendants, but the plaintiff is claiming the disputed property located between Road No.2 and not the property between Road No.1. Further the wife of plaintiff has claimed the same disputed property in O.S.No.636 of 1996 and the plaintiff in the suit is also claiming the very same property stating that it was situated towards West of the Plot No.44 of his wife. As could be seen from Ex.A2, there is no such property after the disputed property except Avilala road on the Western side. As could be seen from Ex.A2, there is no such property after the disputed property except Avilala road on the Western side. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that some portion of the site belonging to his plots was included in Avilala road after survey, but how much extent was acquired for the road is not mentioned and the exact extent of the site available on ground for Plot No. 46 and 47 is also not known, which is also clearly mentioned by the first appellate court. 23. Further upon perusal of the common Judgment dated 15.09.2008 in S.A.No.1662 and 1663 of 2004, which is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 13.12.2004 in A.S.No.85 and 86 of 2003, which is subject matter of O.S.No.660 of 1996 and O.S.No.636 of 1996, wherein the court below holding that the plaintiff in O.S.No.636 of 1996 proved her possession over the plaint schedule property, therefore, she is entitled for injunction as prayed for. Consequently the trial court dismissed O.S.No.660 of 1996. The subject property is also part and parcel in the S.A.No.1662 and 1663 of 2004, wherein it is an undisputed fact that an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents situated in Paimash No.464 of Tiruchanoor Village originally belongs to one Beegala Munaswamy and the plaint schedule property forms part of the said land. The said Beegala Munaswamy in turn sold the same to M. Satyanarayana Chetty. The said Satyanarayana Chetty in turn divided the same into house plots and sold to various persons, which discloses that plot No.44 is surrounded by plot Nos. 42 to 47 so also as per layout plan the plots. But as per layout plan on the southern side there is 30 ft., road and northern side there is 20 ft., road. 24. Whereas the first appellate court held that the appellant and respondents had purchased different properties with different boundaries, but they are claiming one and the same property. Further it was held that the appellant is claiming the property as against the schedules mentioned in his sale deeds under Ex.A7, A9 and A11 and against Ex.A1 and A3. Under the said circumstances, it was held that the appellant is not entitled to declaration of title, consequential injunction and damages and dismissed the appeal. 25. Further it was held that the appellant is claiming the property as against the schedules mentioned in his sale deeds under Ex.A7, A9 and A11 and against Ex.A1 and A3. Under the said circumstances, it was held that the appellant is not entitled to declaration of title, consequential injunction and damages and dismissed the appeal. 25. In the instant case, the identity of the property is in dispute, though both sides relied on various documents, which were marked as Exhibits on behalf of respective parties to the suit. 26. Therefore the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, whereas the first appellate court has discussed catena of decisions of various courts and also came to a conclusion as same as trial court and dismissed the appeal, but the both courts below held that as per Commissioners Report, no objections had been filed by either of the parties and further the property in question is identified and localized the same by taking the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, which is also supported by Ex.A53. 27. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the first appellate court has not dealt the issues in right perspective in accordance with law, though the first appellate court has discussed catena of decisions of various courts, but not dealt the issue in right perspective and not given proper reasons against the grounds urged by the plaintiff. It is further contended that though there is evidence on record, the courts below failed to consider the same and came to a wrong conclusion, consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. If such remarks answered properly as raised in the grounds of appeal before this Court and also the first appellate court, then automatically the truth will came to light and thereby resolved the issue with good findings. Therefore he relied on a decisions cited supra and requested to consider the same and prays to remand the matter back to the first appellate court to reconsider the issues and pass judgment and decree afresh to meet the ends of justice. 28. After close scrutiny of the findings of the both trial court as well as first appellate court, this Court opines that the first appellate court have discussed at length and failed to give proper reasoning by appreciating the evidence on record. 28. After close scrutiny of the findings of the both trial court as well as first appellate court, this Court opines that the first appellate court have discussed at length and failed to give proper reasoning by appreciating the evidence on record. It is the duty of the first appellate court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference. Therefore there is some force in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and case law relied upon by him to substantiate his pleas. Therefore to clear of the stigma, this Second Appeal deserves to be remand to the first appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law, keeping in view of the observations made supra and also in B.V. Nagesh’s case (cited supra-5), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court had clearly discussed how the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has been considered by this Court in various decisions. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the Second Appeal, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate court and remand the appeal to the first appellate court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court refrained from making any observation on merits of the controversy having formed an opinion to remand the case to the first appellate court. This Court, therefore, decide the appeal uninfluenced by any of the observations in accordance with law. Since the suit is of the 2005 and quite old, the first appellate court is directed to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30. With the above discussion, the Second Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.