JUDGMENT : (M.G.S. KAMAL, J.) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by defendant No.6, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19 th April 2007, passed in O.S. No.162/2003 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Gangavathi (for short “the trial Court”), by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule property; with further directing to the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the said 1/3 rd share by metes and bounds, and also declared that the deed of sale bearing Document No.5800/1999-00, dated 08.03.2000, entitled by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 is not binding on the plaintiff. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant - defendant No.6 preferred appeal in R.A. No.8/2007 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Gangavathi (for short “the First Appellate Court”). The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and order dated 16.08.2007, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and they constitute joint family. Defendant No.1 is the Kartha of the family. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 possessed joint family properties, as coparceners. Defendant No.6 is a stranger to the family. 5. Suit Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted by the Government in the year 1982 to the family of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, as landless persons, by regularising their unauthorised occupation in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the senior member of the family. A Saguvali Chit dated 15.10.1982 was issued by the Tahsildar, Gangavathi. Though the grant was made in the name of defendant No.1, the benefit enured to all the family members, and all of them are entitled to an equal share along with defendant No.1. It is further stated that defendant No.1 was addicted to bad vices, and due to his weakness, he sold one acre of land in favour of defendant No.6 in terms of sale deed dated 08.03.2000 for a meager amount of sale consideration. Based on which defendant No.6 got his name mutated in the revenue records. It is further stated that defendant No.1 was addicted to bad vices, and due to his weakness, he sold one acre of land in favour of defendant No.6 in terms of sale deed dated 08.03.2000 for a meager amount of sale consideration. Based on which defendant No.6 got his name mutated in the revenue records. Plaintiff learnt about the said transaction when they received the summons in OS No.5/2002 which was filed by defendant No.6 for relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and their mother. On verification of the records, it was found that defendant No.1 had sold the property item No.1 to defendant No. 6 without the knowledge of other members of the joint family. Hence, the suit for partition. 6. Defendant No.6 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the suit property was the self acquired property of defendant No.1. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 were neither the coparceners nor co-owners of the property as such they were not entitled for partition. Hence sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of one acre in Sy. No.11/20 of Anjinalli village is not binding on the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled to 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that, he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in possession of the property to the extent of one acre in Sy.No.11/20 of Anjinalli village? 5. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that, the defendant No.1 is the exclusive and absolute owner and he was exclusive possession of the Sy. No.11/20 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Anjinalli village prior to the alleged sale deed? 6. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there is a cause of action to file the present suit? 7. What order or decree? 8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 8 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. Defendant No.6 examined himself as DW1 and three more witnesses have been examined as DW2 to DW4 and exhibited 9 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D9. 9. 7. What order or decree? 8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 8 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. Defendant No.6 examined himself as DW1 and three more witnesses have been examined as DW2 to DW4 and exhibited 9 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D9. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 in the affirmative and issue Nos.4, 5 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit. 10. In the appeal filed defendant No.6 the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration:- “1. Whether findings of the trial court in O.S.No.162/2003 is correct? 2. Whether the findings of the learned trial judge in O.S.No.162/2003 call for interference? 3. Whether respondent No.2 and 3 prove that they are also entitled for 1/3 rd share, each in the suit schedule property? 4. What order?” 11. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court concurred with the reasoning recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial Court. 12. This appeal is taken up consideration of following substantial question of law; “Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court justified in holding that the defendant No.1 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 in violation of the terms of order of grant by taking the date of delivery of possession as 1990 instead of date on which the order of grant had been made on 10.06.1982?” 13. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court grossly erred in holding that the alienation of the property by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 6 was in violation of the terms of the grant. He submits the very grant made by the State in favour of defendant No.1 and others was on the premise of they being in unauthorised occupation of the land in question. Therefore, the question of delivery of possession as understood by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous. 14. He referred to the grant order at Ex.P7 to point out condition No.1 which indicates that non alienation period of 15 years would commence from the date of the order. Therefore, the question of delivery of possession as understood by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous. 14. He referred to the grant order at Ex.P7 to point out condition No.1 which indicates that non alienation period of 15 years would commence from the date of the order. He therefore submits that since the grant order at Ex.P7 being dated 10.06.1982 and the sale deed having been executed in the year 2000 beyond the period of 15 years, there is no violation in terms of the agreement. Hence, he submits the substantial question of law raised needs to be answered in the affirmative, setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 9 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 would prevail, even if the condition referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in the grant order is otherwise. He submits unambiguous terms of Rule 9 which is relied upon by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court would mandate that the 15 years period of non alienation would commence from the date of possession which is admitted by defendant No.6 to be in the year 1990. As such, since the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 08.03.2000 falling within the prohibited period of 15 years, no title would stand transferred in favour of defendant No.6. No illegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and substantial question of law needs to be answered in the negative. 16. Heard and perused the records. 17. While going through the grant order at Ex.P7, this Court noticed, the said document which is relied upon by the parties and taken note of both by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court appears to be a grant order made in favour of about 40 persons belonging to scheduled caste granting portions of land in Sy.No.11 of Anjanahalli village. The name of defendant No.1 is not reflected in the list of allottees / grantees mentioned in the said order. The name of defendant No.1 is not reflected in the list of allottees / grantees mentioned in the said order. However, on a query by this Court, as to whether the parties have relied upon any document other than Ex.P7 in respect of their claim over the land in Sy.No.11 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, on verifying the documents again both the counsel submitted except Ex.P7, there is no other grant order was produced by any of the parties to the suit. 18. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant furnished a photocopy of another grant order in respect of very same land in Sy.No.11 which consists of 2 pages. Perusal of which reveal that there are names of 22 allottees / grantees and the name of defendant No.1 is reflected at Sl.No.8 of the said document. Said document has admittedly not been produced either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. 19. What emerges from the above is, that trial Court and the First Appellate Court have apparently taken Ex.P7 into consideration to adjudicate the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding the subject land having been granted in favour of defendant No.1, while the said document does not pertain to the land grant which is subject matter of this suit. 20. In the absence of this material evidence being on record, the reasoning and conclusion arrived by the trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court result in perversity as the required document has neither been made available nor appreciated by the Courts. 21. On a further query by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant – defendant No.6 submitted that the original grant order must be in the possession of the plaintiff or defendant Nos.1 to 5 and he has been furnished only copy of the same. 22. Be that as it may. The undisputed fact of the matter is that the subject land was granted in the name of defendant No.1 in terms of grant order dated 10.06.1982 and that he has sold an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas of land in favour of defendant No.8 in terms of registered sale deed dated 08.03.2000. 22. Be that as it may. The undisputed fact of the matter is that the subject land was granted in the name of defendant No.1 in terms of grant order dated 10.06.1982 and that he has sold an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas of land in favour of defendant No.8 in terms of registered sale deed dated 08.03.2000. Even to ascertain if the suit land was granted exclusively in favour of defendant No.1 or was granted on behalf of his family members, the material documentary evidence is not made available on record, let alone to consider the allegation of violation of terms of grant. 23. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court is required to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration; Accordingly the following: ORDER (a) Judgment and decree dated 19.04.2007 passed in OS No.162/2003 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Gangavathi and judgement and decree dated 16.08.2007 passed in RA No.8/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gangavathi are hereby set aside. (b) Matter is remitted to the trial court with a direction to provide an opportunity to either of the parties to lead further evidence by producing the actual grant order under which the subject property was granted in the name of defendant No.1. Only thereafter, proceed to determine the rights of the parties. (c) Since the matter is pending consideration from the year 2003, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit without seeking unnecessary adjournment in the matter. (d) Since the parties are being represented by respective counsel, they shall appear before the trial Court on 10.07.2025 without any further notice.