JUDGMENT : 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed in R.A.No.60/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in and by which the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/defendants confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed in O.S.No.113/1989 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Parties in this appeal are referred to by their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The above suit in O.S.No.113/1989 was filed by the plaintiffs namely (i) Gadagayya, (ii) Magayya and (iii) Chanbasayya, all sons of Parayya Bhavi against the defendants namely (i) Channayya s/o Parayya Bhavi, (ii) Parayya S/o Ishwarayya Bhavi and (iii) Chanayya S/o Ishwarayya Bhavi for following reliefs; i) permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 to 5 from disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in respect of suit land; ii) for declaration that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled to perform pooja and to share the offerings made to deity of Prabhudev Devasthan during the turn of one year out of the cycle of 8 years jointly with defendant Nos.2 to 5; and, iii) for consequential relief of permanent injunction not to disturb in share of offerings and performance of pooja by the plaintiffs and defendants along with defendant Nos.2 to 5. 4. Case of the plaintiffs is; 4.1. That the plaintiffs and the defendants are pujaris of Prabhudev temple at Terdal, Jamakhandi taluk and they belong to Bhavi family and are related to each other as bhahubhand. The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants is explained by a genealogy annexed to the plaint. 4.2. That, the land bearing Sy.No.585 and Sy.No.712 together measures 19 acres 4 guntas is an Inam Land of Prabhudev Devasthan, which has been divided into various strips and these strips and names of their occupants have been described in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint. 4.3. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that one Allayya Bhavi was the propositus. He had three sons namely (i) Magayya, (ii)Chanayya and (iii)Parayya. First son-Magayya had a son by name Channayya and a daughter by name Parawwa, of whom Channayya died issueless and Parawwa was survived by her only daughter by name Guravva. 4.3. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that one Allayya Bhavi was the propositus. He had three sons namely (i) Magayya, (ii)Chanayya and (iii)Parayya. First son-Magayya had a son by name Channayya and a daughter by name Parawwa, of whom Channayya died issueless and Parawwa was survived by her only daughter by name Guravva. The second son of the propositus, Channayya died issueless. The defendants 2 to 5 are the descendants of the third son -Parayya. 4.4. The poojaraki rights belonging to Parawwa and her daughter Gurawwa was inherited by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 who are the sons of Gurawwa. The income by way of offerings in the devasthan was shared equally by the plaintiffs and the defendants as they belong to single group. That there are eight groups in the family and each group gets its right to offer pooja once in the cycle of eight years. Plaintiffs and defendants belong to one such group and they together get their turn once in eight years to offer pooja, as such they are entitled for half of the income while the defendants are entitled for remaining half. 4.5. Parawwa and her daughter Gurawwa being female heirs could not personally take part in the pooja, however they were only sharing the offerings to the deity. Taking advantage of the absence of names of Parawwa and Guravva, in the charge report for they being female heirs, defendants Nos.2 to 5 appropriated share of the plaintiffs. That defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also interfered with the possession of land of the plaintiffs and also prevented plaintiffs from appropriating their share in the offerings. 4.6. Plaintiffs being the male members also wanted to perform pooja along with the defendants, but they are being prevented by defendant Nos.2 to 5, constraining the plaintiffs to file suit seeking the reliefs as noted above. 5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and defendants 3 to 5 have adopted the same; 5.1. denying the plaint averment and also denied the entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the land and their poojaraki rights along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 and sharing of the offering to the deity. 5.2. It is further contended that Parawwa had another daughter by name Mogevva who was given in marriage to one Mugulkhod husband. 5.3. denying the plaint averment and also denied the entitlement of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in the land and their poojaraki rights along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 and sharing of the offering to the deity. 5.2. It is further contended that Parawwa had another daughter by name Mogevva who was given in marriage to one Mugulkhod husband. 5.3. It is specifically contended that Parawwa through and under whom the plaintiffs are claiming rights had relinquished her share in the year 1919 in favour of Parayya Bhavi by taking Rs.500/- in O.S.No.102/1917 of Terdal Court. The said Parayya Bhavi was grandfather of defendant No.2 to 5 as such, the plaintiffs cannot claim their share. That the Plaintiffs are not in possession of property in strip No.1 and 2 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas, as such the question of defendants disturbing their possession would not arise. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Initially on 07.07.1997, defendant No.1 had also filed written statement in the lines of written statement filed by defendant No.2. Subsequently on 14.07.1997 he filed yet another written statement admitting the plaint averments and claiming his share in the suit property. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Do the plaintiffs prove that strip No.1 and 2 in schedule ‘C’ belongs to them and defendant no.1 and they are in possession of the same? 2. If so do they prove interference by defendant No.2 to 3 in their enjoyment of those strips? 3. Do plaintiffs prove that they and defendant No.1 have equal joint right of worshiping deity of Terdal with defendants 2 to 5 for one year in 8 years cycle as alleged?” 4. If so do they prove interference by defendants 2 to 5 in exercising of such right and receiving offerings? 5. Are plaintiffs entitle to the reliefs sought for? 6. What decree or order?” 8. The plaintiffs examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and exhibited 21 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P21. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of defendants as DW1 to DW3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D18(a). 9. 5. Are plaintiffs entitle to the reliefs sought for? 6. What decree or order?” 8. The plaintiffs examined 5 witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and exhibited 21 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P21. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of defendants as DW1 to DW3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D18(a). 9. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issues No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.3 and 4 in the affirmative and consequently decreed the suit as under; “ORDER Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitle to perform the Pooja and share the offerings before the deity of Sri Prabhudev Devasthanam, Teradal during the turn of one year out of the cycle of 8 years belonging to the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 with defendants no.2 to 5 jointly. The defendants No.2 to 5 are restrained by permanent injunction from disturbing the performance of Pooja of plaintiffs and defendant no.1 at Sri Prabhudev Devasthan and receiving the share in offerings before the deity by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 on one hand and defendants No.2 to 5 on the other hand have equal rights of Pooja with equal share in the offerings. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitle to amount in deposit in the court in accordance with their share. Further the defendants No.2 to 5 are restrained by way of permanent injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their share of land out of Inam land regranted in the suit schedule property, this order of injunction will come into force only after final determination of their ownership before appropriate forum until which the order of Injunction will be in abeyance. Draw Decree accordingly.” 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed regular appeal in RA No.60/2008. Considering the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1. Whether the appellants/original defendant No.2, 3A, 4 and 5 proves that the findings one arrayed(sic arrived) by the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Jamakhandi on issues in O.S.No.113/1989 after remand in the judgment dated 31.03.2008 are perverse, capricious and erroneous and deserves to be interfered with? 2. Whether the appellants/original defendant No.2, 3A, 4 and 5 proves that the findings one arrayed(sic arrived) by the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Jamakhandi on issues in O.S.No.113/1989 after remand in the judgment dated 31.03.2008 are perverse, capricious and erroneous and deserves to be interfered with? 2. Whether the appellants further proves that the deceased Parawwa who was grandmother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No.1 had relinquished her pujaraki rights and receiving of offerings in kind of deity Prabhudev Math of Terdal in favour of Parayya Ningayya Bhavi under compromise decree one entered in OS No.102/1917 of Middle Division of Munsiff Court of Terdal (in the erstwhile princely state of Sangli sitting at Terdal)? 3. Whether the respondents proves that the judgment and decree passed by the lower court deserves to be maintained? 4. What order?” 11. The First appellate court answered point no.1 and 2 in the negative and point no.3 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Trial Court. 12. This Court by the order dated 23.04.2014 framed the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have committed a serious error in decreeing the suit, more particularly, by misreading Ex.D1, the compromise decree passed in OS No.102/1917 and compromise petition? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, both the courts below committed error in granting the relief of permanent injunction, when the tenancy issue is pending before this court in Writ Appeal Nos.30286/2013, c/w. Writ Appeal No.30277/2013?” (As reframed/reformulated by order dated 30.08.2021) 3. Whether both the Courts have committed a serious error in holding that deceased Parawwa had succeeded to the estate of the deceased Channayya in 1917, ignoring the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937? 4. Whether the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are perverse and illegal by ignoring material evidence placed on record?” 13. Submissions of Sri.Ravi S Balikai, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 5 : 13.1. 4. Whether the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are perverse and illegal by ignoring material evidence placed on record?” 13. Submissions of Sri.Ravi S Balikai, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 5 : 13.1. Reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have at the first instance committed grave error in not appreciating the fact that the plaintiffs had right to perform pooja only to an extent of four annas inherited through their father and that they had no right of any nature whatsoever either to perform pooja or on the suit schedule property through their mother and grandmother namely Gurawwa and Parawwa respectively. He submits that for more than 70 years, the poojaraki rights have been performed by defendants No.2 to 5 and at no point of time, plaintiffs offered pooja or shared the offering along with the defendant Nos.2 to 5. 13.2. Referring to Ex.D8 to D12, learned counsel submits that these exhibits which are material evidence regarding handing over of charge of poojaraki rights by respective family members to the successive family members at their respective turn, would establish that the plaintiffs never performed pooja along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 but they were performing pooja only to the extent of their four annas, which they inherited from their paternal side separately at their turn. He submits that the first appellate court and the trial court have failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter. 13.3. Referring to Ex.D1-certified copy of the compromise decree in O.S.No.102/1917 on the file of Munsiff, Terdal; Ex.D.1(b)-hand written application filed in suit in O.S.No.102/1917; Ex.D.1(c)-Typed copy of Ex.D.1(b); Ex.D14-compromise petition in O.S.No. 102/1917; Ex.D14(a)-Kannada translation of Ex.D.14; Ex.D15-Order copy of the Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi; Ex.D17-hand written copy of the Plaint, compromise decree and order in O.S.No.102/1917 and Ex.D18-Typed copy of Ex.D.17, learned counsel submits that the aforesaid documents reveal that Parawwa had filed a suit against propositus of defendant Nos.2 to 5 namely Parayya, in which, compromise was entered into, in terms of which, the said Parawwa in consideration of a sum of Rs.500/-had relinquished her right in the property as well as right to perform pooja. He submits that in the light of the said material evidence, trial court and the first appellate court failed to appreciate the same when admittedly female heirs cannot perform pooja of a deity, there was no possibility of plaintiffs inheriting right of pooja through Parawwa and Guravva. 13.4. He further submits that Parawwa having given up her rights in favour of propositus of defendant Nos.2 to 5 in consideration of receipt of Rs.500/-, the trial court and the first appellate court have failed to appreciate that there was nothing for the plaintiffs to inherit through her and as such burden of proving their right title and interest over suit property was on the plaintiffs. However, he submits that, the trial court and the first appellate court erroneously cast the burden on the defendants to prove that they were in exclusive possession of the suit property and they had Poojaraki rights. 13.5. He further submits that the suit in O.S.No.102/1917 had been filed for possession. The said suit was dismissed. No compromise decree was passed. He submits that Ex.D.1, Ex.D.14, Ex.D.17 and Ex.D.18 needs to be read conjointly to arrive at a proper conclusion by appreciating as to what exactly had transpired between Parawwa and Parayya with regard to their rights over the property and poojaraki rights. That the trial court and the first appellate court erred in reading the contents of Ex.D1 in isolation with other exhibits and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion resulting in same being perverse. 13.6. It is further contended that the trial court and the first appellate court failed to look into the provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 inasmuch as Channayya the brother of Parawwa passed away prior to 1917 and Parawwa being his sister could not have succeeded to the estate of her brother Channayya. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the next heirs of said Channayya were entitled to his estate in its entirety. Thus, he submits that finding of the trial court and the first appellate court of Parawwa succeeding to the rights of Channayya was contrary to provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. 13.7. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the next heirs of said Channayya were entitled to his estate in its entirety. Thus, he submits that finding of the trial court and the first appellate court of Parawwa succeeding to the rights of Channayya was contrary to provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. 13.7. He submits that on the one hand, Parawwa had relinquished her rights by receiving consideration of Rs.500/-in favour of propositus of defendant Nos.2 to 5 and on the other hand, she was disentitled to have any right in terms of provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. Thus, both factually and legally Parawwa had no right either in the suit property or Poojaraki, as such, there was nothing available for the plaintiffs to succeed through Parawwa. 13.8. That since the matter with regard to registration/grant of occupancy rights are still pending consideration before the appropriate authority, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief of injunction in respect of the subject property. 13.9. He further submits that suit is also barred by limitation, as in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, plaintiffs ought to have filed suit within three years from the date of accrual of cause of action and in the instant case, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit upon the demise of Parawwa. 13.10. Appellants/defendants 2 to 5 have filed an application in IA No.3 of 2013 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of following documents: 1. Certified copy of the order sheet in OS No.102/1917 before the Munsiff Court, Sangli, 2. Kannada translation of the above order sheet 3. Certified copy of the compromise decree in OS No.102/1917 passed by Munsiff, Sangli. 4. Kannada translation of compromise decree. 13.11. In support of the above application, I.A.No.3/2013 learned counsel submits that production of said documents are necessary as earlier document at Ex.D1 was not in good shape as it was torn into pieces and could not be translated properly. That though subsequently document at Ex.D14 compromise petition and document at Ex.D17, plaint was produced, the trial court and the first appellate court could not relate to Ex.D1 with Ex.D14 and D17 and thereby got confused. That though subsequently document at Ex.D14 compromise petition and document at Ex.D17, plaint was produced, the trial court and the first appellate court could not relate to Ex.D1 with Ex.D14 and D17 and thereby got confused. In order to secure the same, plaintiffs visited Sangli, Pune, Bagalkote and Bijapur number of times and with great effort could obtain certified copies of order sheet, plaint copy, compromise decree etc., from Bijapur District Court record room only in the second week of February 2013 and which they now seek to produce for proper adjudication of the matter and the same are required for proper understanding of the fact situation. Hence, he submits that application be allowed. 13.12. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgment in support of his case: 1. 1969 (2) SCC 201 –Baldevdas Shivlal and another Vs.Filmistan Distributors (India) P.Ltd., and others 2. AIR 1956 SC 346 – Raja Sri Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo Vs.State of Orissa 3. (1973)2 SCC 40 Bhavan Vaja and Others vs.Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and another 4. 1968 (1) Mysore Law Journal 14. Submission of Sri. V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel along with Sri. F.V.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs; 14.1. Justifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court learned counsel submitted that admittedly, there was a prior partition between the two branches of Magayya and Parayya who were the sons of original propositus of Allayya Bhavi. The branch of Magayya was survived by Parawwa and Gurawwa who are the grandmother and mother respectively of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The branch of Parayya survived by Ningayya, Parayya, Ishwarayya who are the great grandfather, grandfather and father respectively of defendants Nos.2 to 5. That in the branch of Magayya, Parawwa was the sole legal heir. In the said partition, the family property was divided into 10 strips which fact is even admitted by DW.1 in his deposition. 14.2.That the said Parawwa had right in the property as well as Poojaraki rights. He further submits that there is no pleading in the written statement regarding the claim of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to the effect that since there were no male heirs in the branch of Magayya, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the next male heirs in the Parayya’s branch inherited the rights in the land and poojaraki. He further submits that there is no pleading in the written statement regarding the claim of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to the effect that since there were no male heirs in the branch of Magayya, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 being the next male heirs in the Parayya’s branch inherited the rights in the land and poojaraki. In other words, he submits that no foundation is laid in the pleadings with regard to right of defendant Nos.2 to 5 as reversionaries. 14.3. Alternatively, he submits that even if it is to be held that there was no prior partition, in terms of Chapters V & VI of Mulla’s Hindu Law, Parawwa being sister of Channayya was a heir in accordance with law applicable to Bombay State and since admittedly parties to the suit are governed by Hindu Law applicable to the Bombay State, Parawwa being the sister of Channayya inherited his estate including Poojaraki rights of the deity. 14.4.Adverting to claim of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 of Parawwa relinquishing her rights in favour of Parayya their grandfather, it is submitted that the alleged relinquishment was for a sum of Rs.500/-and the documents relied upon by them are Exs.D1, D14, D17 and D18. That, perusal of which would not even indicate that Parawwa had relinquished her right to Poojaraki in favour of Parayya Lingayya Bhavi as claimed. 14.5.He submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of the fact that DW.4 who is the witness produced by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to read, interpret and translate the said documents at Exs.D1, D14, D17 and D18 has expressed his inability and as such, the said documents cannot be taken into consideration. 14.6.He submits that even if the said documents are to be accepted as a compromise in which Parawwa relinquished her right in favour of Parayya, the said documents are inadmissible for want of registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 admittedly had no pre-existing rights over the suit property. Therefore, the said document relating to rights in respect of immovable property cannot be taken in evidence without compliance under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Poojaraki rights also being in the nature of immovable property requires registration. 14.7. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 admittedly had no pre-existing rights over the suit property. Therefore, the said document relating to rights in respect of immovable property cannot be taken in evidence without compliance under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Poojaraki rights also being in the nature of immovable property requires registration. 14.7. He submits that even as admitted by the defendants and the plaintiffs have 1/4th share in the Pooja rights and in the land. In the absence of proof of compromise or relinquishment as claimed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 they are entitled for half share in the Pooja rights as well as right of property as claimed in the plaint. 14.8. Responding to the application filed by the defendants seeking production of additional documents, learned counsel submits that, the said application is filed only to fill up the lacuna, as DW.3 in his deposition has already stated that, he could only read 50% of the documents and the remaining 50% of the document is in a rotten condition. Therefore, he strongly opposes the production of additional documents and submits that, defendant Nos.2 to 5 cannot be permitted to produce evidence in piece meal at every stage of the proceedings. That neither any explanation nor sufficient reason is offered for acceptance of the additional evidence, hence, seeks for rejection of the said application. Learned counsel relies upon the following judgments in support of his contention: i. HANUMAMMA Vs. M.T.RAMALINGAIAH AND ORS. Passed in MSA.No.67/2000 dated 27.02.2001 before this Court. ii. BHOOP SINGH Vs. RAM SINGH MAJOR reported in ILR 1996 KAR iii. CHAND KAUR VS. RAJ KAUR AND ORS. reported in AIR 1997 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 155 iv. RAM RATTAN LRs Vs. BHAJANG LAL AND ORS. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1393 v. RAJ KALI KUER Vs. RAM RATHAN PANDEY reported in AIR 1955 SC 493 14.9.Thus, he submits that the appeal be dismissed answering the substantial question of law in favour of the plaintiffs. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 16. On production of additional evidence : 16.1. Before adverting to the aforesaid substantial questions of law it is necessary and imperative to dispose of the application in I.A.No.3/2013 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by the appellants/defendants. As already noted above, the defendants have made this application to permit them to produce four additional documents as listed herein above. Before adverting to the aforesaid substantial questions of law it is necessary and imperative to dispose of the application in I.A.No.3/2013 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by the appellants/defendants. As already noted above, the defendants have made this application to permit them to produce four additional documents as listed herein above. The First of the above documents sought to be produced is a certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.102/1917 filed before the Munsiff Court, Sangli, and the second document is its translation, third document is copy of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.102/1917 and fourth document is the translation of the said document. 16.2. Perusal of the copies of the translation sought to be produced by the defendants reveal that first two documents are the order sheets and the third document is an order purportedly dismissing the suit in O.S.No.102/1917. The said document has already been produced as per Ex.D.18 which contains plaint in O.S.No.102/1917 and order on compromise. Even according to the learned counsel for defendants there is no difference between the documents sought to be produced and documents already on record. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have already taken note of Ex.D.18. The document now sought to be produced would be a mere repetition of Ex.D.18 and would be superfluous for the purpose of determination of the matter. Even in the absence of the said documents and in view of availability of Ex.D.18, this Court is of considered view that, the instant appeal can be disposed of without the additional documents sought to be produced. Hence, the application in I.A.No.3/2013 filed for production of additional document is rejected. 17. THIS COURT'S ANALYSIS : 17.1.There is no much of a dispute by defendant Nos.2 to 5 with regard to the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs at schedule-A to the plaint as noted above, except contending that Parawwa had two daughters namely Gurawwa and Mogevva. However, it is contended by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 that the said Magewwa was given in marriage to Mugalkhod and that none surviving in her family. In that view of the matter, the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs is reliable even according to defendant Nos.2 to 5. The said genealogy is reproduced herein for ready reference; 17.2. However, it is contended by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 that the said Magewwa was given in marriage to Mugalkhod and that none surviving in her family. In that view of the matter, the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs is reliable even according to defendant Nos.2 to 5. The said genealogy is reproduced herein for ready reference; 17.2. There is also no dispute, that the families of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 on the one hand and defendant Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand having inherited Poojaraki rights. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property belongs to the families of both the plaintiffs and the defendants and that the same were endowed to Shri Prabhudev Temple of Terdal at Jamakhandi Taluk. 17.3.The dispute is only with regard to claim of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 having inherited their rights over land and Poojaraki rights through their grandmother Parawwa, the only surviving heir in the branch of Magayya and their claim of performing poojaraki rights along with defendants 2 to 5. Regarding substantial question of law No.1 : 17.4. It is to be seen that as per the genealogy shown in the plaint, propositus Allayya Bhavi had three sons namely (i) Magayya, (ii) Chennayya and (iii) Parayya. Magayya the first son, had a son by name Channayya and a daughter by name Parawwa. Second son Chennayya had admittedly died issueless. Third son Parayya had four sons namely (i) Magayya, (ii) Ningayya, (iii) Hampayya and (iv) Allayya. Thus, after the demise of propositus Allayya Bhavi, there existed two branches of his family, one branch of Magayya and the another branch of Parayya. Each branch becoming entitled for half of the share in the family property and Poojaraki rights of their family deity. 17.5. In the Branch of Magayya his son Channayya admittedly passed away prior to 1917. Therefore, the only surviving heir in the Magayya’s branch was his daughter Parawwa. There is no details about the date of death of Parawwa. But it is not in dispute that Parawwa passed away leaving behind her daughter Gurawwa who is the mother of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The said Gurewwa passed away on 03.10.1986 as per Ex.P4. Thus, the branch of Magayya is now represented by plaintiffs and defendant No.1. 17.6. There is no details about the date of death of Parawwa. But it is not in dispute that Parawwa passed away leaving behind her daughter Gurawwa who is the mother of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The said Gurewwa passed away on 03.10.1986 as per Ex.P4. Thus, the branch of Magayya is now represented by plaintiffs and defendant No.1. 17.6. On the other hand in the branch of Parayya it is stated that his first, third and fourth sons namely Magayya, Hampayya and Allayya died issueless. It is only the second son Ningayya survived by his son Parayya. Said Parayya was survived by his son Ishwarayya who is the father of defendants No.2 to 5. Thus, the branch of Parayya is now represented by defendant Nos.2 to 5. 17.7. The plaintiffs’ case is that there was a partition between Magayya and Parayya two surviving sons of original propositus Allayya Bhavi each entitled for half of share in property as well as Poojaraki rights. Since son of Magayya namely Channayya had died issueless, upon his demise, his sister Parawwa succeeded to entire half share of Magayya in the property and in the Poojaraki rights. Till here, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have not disputed the case of the plaintiffs. 17.8.The further case of the plaintiffs is that Parawwa passed away leaving behind Gurawwa mother of the plaintiffs who in turn succeeded to the said half share of land and Poojaraki rights, which has been seriously and vehemently disputed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 on two folds. Firstly it is their categoric contention in their written statement Parawwa had relinquished her share in the year 1919 in favour of their grandfather Parayya Bhavi, by taking a sum of Rs.500/-in terms of a compromise entered into in suit in O.S.No.102/1917 of Terdal Court. As such, the defendants have succeeded to the right of Parawwa and her daughter Gurewwa in exclusion to the plaintiffs. Secondly, though not pleaded in the written statement in this appeal it is their case that in terms of provisions of Hindu Women’s right to Property Act, 1937 Parawwa being sister of Channayya could not inherit his estate in the presence of forefathers of defendants. 17.9. Secondly, though not pleaded in the written statement in this appeal it is their case that in terms of provisions of Hindu Women’s right to Property Act, 1937 Parawwa being sister of Channayya could not inherit his estate in the presence of forefathers of defendants. 17.9. Apart from above grounds, the defendants have also claimed that the plaintiffs have only four annas of share in the suit property and in the Poojaraki rights that too, through their paternal side alone and that the plaintiffs did not have any share much less half share as claimed in the suit from their maternal side i.e., through Parawwa as she had relinquished her share. 17.10. In the above factual background of the matter, for the purpose of answering the first substantial question of law, it is necessary to advert to the evidence led in by the parties and appreciation of the same by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the issue of construction of Ex.D.1 and the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.102/1917. 17.11. Defendants as noted above, have specifically contended at paragraph No.6 of the written statement that Parawwa had relinquished her share in the property in favour of their grandfather Parayya Bhavi in consideration of Rs.500/-in a compromise entered into in O.S.No.102/1917. In justification of this plea, defendants have produced Exs.D1, D14, D17 and D18. The said pleading postulates Parawwa having had half a share right, title and interest in the family properties as well as poojaraki rights. 17.12. It is necessary at this juncture to note that, the suit of the plaintiffs had been earlier decreed on 31.07.1997 which was confirmed by the I Additional District Judge, Bijapur by its judgment and order dated 17.03.1998 in R.A.No.29/1997 and the said judgment and decree was carried in second appeal in RSA.No.369/1998 by the defendants-2 to 5 before this Court. In the said regular second appeal, defendants-2 to 5 had filed application seeking production of additional evidence and this Court accepting the said application allowed the regular second appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and remanded the matter to the original file with direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to lead additional evidence by its judgment and order dated 20.11.2001. 17.13. 17.13. After the said remand, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 adduced additional evidence by producing copy of the plaint, compromise application filed in O.S.No.102/1917, and the order on compromise filed in O.S.No.102/1917 which are marked as Exs.D14, D17 and the typed copy of the same is at Ex.D18 respectively. The said documents in Exs.D1, D14, D17 and D18 are in old Marathi language and for the purpose of proving the contents of the same defendants examined DW.4 namely one Laxman aged 91 years who in his evidence recorded on 16.03.2006 has deposed that he knew old Marathi and Kannada languages and that he was requested by the defendants about 3 years ago to translate the decree which was in Marathi/Moodi language into Kannada and accordingly he has written the same and translated into Kannada language in his handwriting. He has identified his signature and his handwriting at Exs.D.14 and D17. He also identified Ex.D18 and his signature on Ex.D.18. 17.14. It is necessary to extract the contents of the Ex.D1, D14 and D17. Document at Ex.D18 is the typed version of Ex.D17. Ex.D1 consists of two parts that is plaint and application for compromise. Ex.D1 is torn into pieces and kept in a plastic cover. Hand written portion of application for compromise is produced and marked as Ex.D1a. Ex.D1a which is a hand written document is purportedly an application filed by Parawwa and Paraiah reporting compromise which reads as under; Gist of the above document (Ex.D1a) in English reads as under; “That the plaintiff Parawwa and defendant No.1 Parayya mutually resolved their dispute and in terms of which all the rights and entitlement of deceased Channayya and the plaintiff have been given up and relinquished in favour of defendant No.1 and in consideration thereof defendant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.500/-to the plaintiff and accordingly defendant No.1 became the owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff has not retained any right or ownership over the same and have accordingly requested for passing of the decree.” 17.15. Ex.D14 is another application for compromise purportedly filed by Parawwa and Paraiah in the said suit. Ex.D14(a) is hand written version of the said document while Ex.D14(b) is the typed version of the said document. This document is produced by the defendants 2 to 5 after the remand of the matter. The said document reads as under; 17.16. Ex.D14 is another application for compromise purportedly filed by Parawwa and Paraiah in the said suit. Ex.D14(a) is hand written version of the said document while Ex.D14(b) is the typed version of the said document. This document is produced by the defendants 2 to 5 after the remand of the matter. The said document reads as under; 17.16. Gist of Ex.D14 in English reads as under: "That the deceased Channayya Magayya Bhavi and defendant No.1 Parayya Ningayya Bhavi were in joint possession of all the immovable properties and poojaraki rights of Sri.Prabhudeva Swamy. Since immovable properties of Sri.Prabhudeva Swamy Devaru, Kamadakatte and Terdal and Tamadaddi shall remain with male progeny, from the beginning defendant No.1 Parayya Ningayya Bhavi is in Wahivat of the same. Since the undivided property and the emoluments of Sri.Prabhudeva Swamy Devaru and Pooja rights etc., were with defendant No.1 he is the absolute owner of the same. That Parawwa has no right in respect of estate of the deceased over the immovable property, house or pooja rights of Sri.Prabhudeva Swamy Devaru and the same belong to defendant No.1 -Parayya Ningaiah Bhavi and the court expenses to be borne by him and hence sought for orders in this regard. Dt: Month June 1999 Since the dispute is settled there is no need to prosecute the suit. 17.17. Ex.D17 is hand written version of Ex.D1. This consist of plaint in O.S.No.102/1917 and the order purportedly passed pursuant to a compromise application filed by the parties thereto, dismissing the said suit as same having been settled between the parties. Ex.D18 is the typed version of the Ex.D17. The same is extracted hereunder; 17.18. As already noted the only witness who has spoken about the contents of these documents is DW-4. In the cross-examination recorded on 30.03.2006, D.W.4 has admitted that the Ex.D14 is in a bad condition and only 50% of the said document could be read. The said witness has read the contents of second page of Ex.D.1, which has been recorded by the Trial Court and reads as under; (Gist of the aforesaid deposition reads as under; In paragraph No.1 of the said document it is mentioned that the plaintiff’s brother Channayya S/o.Magayya Bhavi was the owner of the property. He passed away. Plaintiff is his sister. Being his sister, she is his legal heir. He passed away. Plaintiff is his sister. Being his sister, she is his legal heir. Except the plaintiff there are no other legal heirs of Channayya son of Magayya. In paragraph No.2 of the said document it is stated that defendant is a far distant relative of the brother of the plaintiff. His ancestors were separated from Channayya several years ago (partitioned). That in paragraph No.3 of the said document it is stated that the possession of the schedule property has been forcibly taken from the plaintiff. 17.19. Learned counsel for the defendants -2 to 5 emphatically submitted that the Trial Court and First Appellant Court erred in reading Ex.D1 in isolation. They ought to have read the said document along with Ex.D14, 17 and 18 to get clear picture. A reading of the aforesaid documents even as insisted by the learned counsel for the defendants would reveal that Ex.D1(a) is an application filed by Parawwa referring to she purportedly relinquishing her right in the property for a sum of Rs.500/-in favour of Parayya. Ex.D14(a) is another application purportedly filed by the parties to the said suit reporting compromise, in which there is reference to immovable property as well as poojaraki rights of Sri.Prabhuswamy Devar Kamadakatte Teradal. Ex.D17 and 18 consists of two parts which is plaint and an order dated 18.06.1919 passed in the said suit. The contents of the plaint refers only to the immovable property and the claim for mesne profit made by said Parawwa. All these three documents contain distinct and different subjects and are not similar to one another. In any event reading of the said documents would not support and justify the contention of the defendants that Parawwa had given up /relinquished her rights in respect of immovable property as well as poojaraki rights and that the same culminated in any compromise decree. 17.20. The Trial Court while recording the evidence of DW.4 had asked the witness to translate some of the lines of Ex.D.1, which even according to the said witness Ex.D.1 is in a bad condition and not legible and has recorded that the witness found it difficult to give correct version of the same and that he had pleaded his inability to give complete translation of the document. 17.21. 17.21. In said situation, the Trial Court has read into handwritten version of Ex.D.1 marked as Ex.D1(a) and has read the contents of the same as extracted at paragraph No.29 of its judgment. 17.22. The Trial Court at paragraph No.30 of its judgment has considered the contents of the plaint in O.S.No.102/1917 produced by the defendants and also it’s translation and on reading of the same, has come to the conclusion that the averments in the said plaint pertains only to the landed properties. 17.23. Ex.D1(a) and the said plaint thus read together would only establish that Parawwa, the plaintiff in the said suit had apparently given up her rights only in respect of suit lands and that the said documents do not reveal that she had given up her Poojaraki rights in respect of Shri Prabhudeva Temple.