JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2015 passed in R.A.No.181/2003 by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, and the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.182/1995 by the learned Additional II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession, contending that the suit schedule properties were acquired by the plaintiff’s father in the partition entered into between him and his brothers and the suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his father were the members of the Hindu joint family and no partition is effected. It is contended that the plaintiff’s father had no right to bequeath the share of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1. It is contended that a Will was executed by father Munivenkatappa on 22.11.1979 bequeathing the properties described in the schedule item Nos.1 to 7 to the plaintiff's minor children and item Nos.1 to 6 in 'B' schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff's sister and defendant No.1. It is contended that the plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, however defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary properties. It is contended that defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by a Will dated 23.11.1979 executed by Munivenkatappa i.e., the testator. After his demise, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner and it is also contended that the plaintiff's children are also beneficiaries or propounders of a Will. All the properties are not included in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit is bad for partition partition. After his demise, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner and it is also contended that the plaintiff's children are also beneficiaries or propounders of a Will. All the properties are not included in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit is bad for partition partition. It is also contended that as of the date of filing the suit for partition, the properties were not available for partition. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues and additional issues: Issues 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the will dated 13.01.1979 executed by his father in favour of the defendants not binding on him in so far as his share is concerned? 2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-inclusion of all the properties that belonged to the father of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the father of the plaintiff himself has divided the properties between the plaintiff and the defendant and the suit properties have been exclusively given to her and that she is in exclusive possession of the same as contended by her in her written statement? 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit properties? 6. To what order or decree? Additional Issues framed on 19.01.1998 1. 1. Whether the defendant proves that the suit properties are not properly valued by the plaintiff? 2. Whether the defendant proves this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit since the properties are valued more that Rs.50,000? 3. Whether the defendant proves that item Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint schedule properties are her self-acquired properties? Amended Issue No.1 framed on 23.07.2003 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the will dated 22.11.1979 executed by his father in favour of the defendant is not binding on him in so far as his share is concerned? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2, and no documents were marked. 3.4. 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2, and no documents were marked. 3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 5, additional issue No.2, and amended issue No.1 in the negative, issue Nos.2, 3, 4, additional issue No.1 in the affirmative, additional issue No.3 does not arise for consideration, and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.07.2003. 3.5. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.182/1995, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.131/2003 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC- III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, and reappreciating the entire evidence on record dismissed the appeal on 17.02.2009. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts, preferred the second appeal before this Court in RSA.No.305/2009. This Court, vide its judgment dated 29.09.2010 remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court. 3.6. After remand, the First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court has properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties? 2. Whether the 4 th respondent is bonafide purchaser of the properties? 3. Whether the impugned judgment is perverse, capricious and illegal? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.182/1995 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dt.23.07.2003 is called for any interference by this appellate Court? 5. What order or decree? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties, and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, point Nos.3 and 4 in the negative, and point No.5 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 19.09.2015. 3.8. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No. 181/2003, and O.S.No.182/1995, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 19.09.2015. 3.8. The legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No. 181/2003, and O.S.No.182/1995, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. and also the learned counsel for the defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff submits that the father- Munivenkatappa had no right to bequeath the share of the plaintiff regarding the suit schedule properties. As the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and Munivenkatappa, Munivenkatappa had no right to execute a Will bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. He also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA.No.305/2009 has observed that, the right of the father of the plaintiff to bequeath the share that would have fallen to the plaintiff's share was in question, and the said aspect has to be considered by the First Appellate Court, and also observed that whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the properties that were bequeathed under the Will, and whether the portion of the property in item No.6 sold in favour of respondent No.4 therein was the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff, and whether it was not the subject matter of the Will? and decide the same in accordance with law. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not complied with the directions issued by this Court in the second appeal in RSA.No.305/2009. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with the directions issued by this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, and remit the matter to the First Appellate Court with a direction to pass a judgment in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in RSA.No.305/2009. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that Munivenkatappa, the Testator executed a Will bequeathing item Nos.1 to 7 of 'A' schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff's children and item Nos.1 to 6 of 'B' schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. He submits that after the demise of the testator, the parties have acted upon, and all the other properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 and children of the plaintiff. He submits that after the demise of the testator, the parties have acted upon, and all the other properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 and children of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the testator executed a Will bequeathing the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 and the children of the plaintiff. He submits that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are just and proper, and do not call for any interference in the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. This Court, on 24.01.2017, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court has committed any serious legal error in not giving any finding as ordered by this Court by answering the issues referred to it by this Court vide order dated 29.09.2010? 2. Whether the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have committed any serious legal error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for non-joinder of necessary parties and properties? 3. Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed any serious legal error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation? 8. Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 to 3 : Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other and hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 9. The plaintiff has produced the records to show that the suit schedule properties were the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and his father. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.07.2003. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.131/2003. The said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2009 passed in R.A.No.131/2003, and by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.182/1995, preferred second appeal in RSA.No.305/2009. 10. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.131/2003. The said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.2009 passed in R.A.No.131/2003, and by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.182/1995, preferred second appeal in RSA.No.305/2009. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, disposed off the second appeal in R.S.A.No.305/2009, vide its judgment dated 29.09.2010, wherein it is held, which reads as follows: "This approach of the Courts below, on the face of it, is found to be an incorrect appreciation of law. The Will was not disputed. The right of the father of the plaintiff to bequeath the share that would have fallen to the plaintiff's share was in question. In terms of Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956" for brevity) any Hindu may dispose of by Will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him. However, by way of an explanation it is laid down that the interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara Coparcenary shall be deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him. Therefore, the father of the plaintiff had every right to dispose of his share of the property and could not have included the plaintiff's share as well. This legal position is clear from a plain reading of Section 30 of the Act, 1956. In the instant case, there was no division between the plaintiff and his father. In that view of the matter, answer the question raised, whether the plaintiff's father could have disposed of the plaintiff's share of the property, which was admittedly ancestral property? The answer would be a clear "No". In which event, both the Courts below were in error in having proceeding on the footing that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to challenge the Will in its entirety. The law does not contemplate such a rigid challenge to a Will. The limited challenge as to the right of the father to bequeath the property, which would have fallen to the share of the plaintiff is a limited question that was required to be answered. The law does not contemplate such a rigid challenge to a Will. The limited challenge as to the right of the father to bequeath the property, which would have fallen to the share of the plaintiff is a limited question that was required to be answered. Therefore, it would be necessary for the lower appellate Court to reconsider the matter in order to save time and effort as the question is clear and does not require much deliberation, Insofar as the claim of the fourth respondent, is concerned, that the property purchased by the said respondent was not the subject-matter of the Will, which is in question and the property sold was actually the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff, is a question that has not been addressed by the trial Court. Since, the fourth respondent was impleaded only before the lower appellate Court, it is open for the fourth respondent to tender evidence in this regard. The lower appellate Court may frame a point for consideration permit the Parties to tender evidence in this regard and thereafter address the issues, Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the properties that were bequeathed under the Will and Whether the portion of the property in item No.6 sold in favour of respondent No.4 was the self acquired property of the father of the plaintiff and whether it was not the subject-matter of the Will? and decide the same in accordance with law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal." 11. From the perusal of the judgment passed by this Court, it is clear that this Court remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court to ascertain whether the plaintiff’s father had a right to bequeath the share that would have fallen to the plaintiff’s share, and directed the First Appellate Court to frame a point for consideration, permitting the parties to tender evidence in this regard, and thereafter framed the issues, whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the properties that were bequeathed under the Will, and whether the portion of the property in respect of item No. 6 sold in favour of respondent No.4 was the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff and whether it was not the subject matter of the Will? 12. 12. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court it is clear that the same is not in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in R.S.A.No.305/2009. The First Appellate Court without recording any findings as ordered by this Court, by answering the issues referred to it, by this Court, in the said second appeal has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with the findings and directions as issued by this Court by answering the issues referred to it. Thus, the matter requires reconsideration by the First Appellate Court. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. Insofar as substantial question Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they does not arise for consideration at this point of time. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 19.09.2015 passed in R.A.No.181/ 2003 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is set aside. iii. The appeal in R.A.No.181/2003 is restored to its original file. iv. The First Appellate Court is directed to pass the judgment in accordance with the findings as ordered by this Court by answering the issues referred to it by this Court in R.S.A.No.305/2009 disposed off on 29.09.2010. v. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 19.01.2026 without awaiting any further notice. vi. The office is directed to transmit the records to the First Appellate Court forthwith. vii. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose off the appeal as expeditiously as possible. viii. This Court has not made any adjudication on merits in issue. ix. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.