JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1(d). 2. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed against the order of remand made by the First Appellate Court directing the appellant herein to seek for appropriate relief by filing comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief's, since there is a dispute with regard to the title and if such application is filed, the Trial Court shall allow the parties to adduce additional evidence and also directed to give opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence, if any and thereafter, matter shall be decided afresh after considering whether recourse of Order XXVI CPC is necessary. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff would vehemently contend that suit is filed only for bare injunction contending that suit schedule property is purchased by the plaintiff and defendants are interfering with possession of the plaintiff. Hence, entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. It is also contended that defendant No.1 having no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property with a malafide intention to knock off the same, has filed an appeal before the President, Taluka Panchayath, Maddur in Appeal No.20/2011-12 challenging the khatha of the suit property made in the name of the defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the said appeal, the plaintiff filed application to implead himself as he was necessary party by virtue of the said sale deed. But, the said Taluka Panchayath rejected the application of the plaintiff and disposed the matter hurriedly to support the illegal claim of defendant No.1 and khatha of the suit property made in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 has been set aside. But immediately, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the Zilla Panchayath, Mandya in Appeal No.34/2011-12 and the same was allowed by the Zilla Panchayath, Mandya by its order dated 07.08.2012 and the khatha of the suit property was ordered to be made in the name of the plaintiff by quashing the order of the Taluka Panchayath. However, the said order of the Zilla Panchayath has been challenged by the defendant No.1 before the High Court of Karnataka and the same is pending for consideration. However, the said order of the Zilla Panchayath has been challenged by the defendant No.1 before the High Court of Karnataka and the same is pending for consideration. Taking disadvantage of the said orders passed by the President, Taluka Panchayath, Maddur, the defendants with an intention to create evidence in their favour are making illegal attempts to put up illegal construction over the suit property. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement contending that defendant No.1 died subsequently and her legal representatives have been brought on record. But, it is pertinent to note that the legal representatives of defendant No.1 i.e., defendant Nos.1(a) to (g) have neither filed their separate written statement nor they adopted the written statement filed by their mother deceased defendant No.1. But, contested the suit basing the contentions taken by their mother defendant No.1 in their written statement. The defendant No.1 during her lifetime, filed written statement and she had denied the case of the plaintiff and further contended that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On the northern side of the suit property, the house of the defendant No.1 is situated and she along with her sons and daughters were in possession of the suit property. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the residents of Mysore, they were never in possession of the suit property. the suit property was originally belonged to the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and he was in possession of the same. After his death, his son Subramaiah was in possession of the suit property. Later on, after the death of the said Subramaiah, his wife i.e., defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property. The defendant No.1 and her children are residing in the disputed property in Nos.134/249 and 136/252 and both the houses and the vacant place with asbestos roofing are one and the same. As per the panchayath records issued by the Dodda Arasinakere Paanchayath, the suit property is in the name of defendant No.1 and the same were stood in the name of her husband. Even the Taluka Panchayath has ordered to enter the name of defendant No.1 by setting aside the khatha made in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3. As per the panchayath records issued by the Dodda Arasinakere Paanchayath, the suit property is in the name of defendant No.1 and the same were stood in the name of her husband. Even the Taluka Panchayath has ordered to enter the name of defendant No.1 by setting aside the khatha made in the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Further the defendant No.1 has also paid kandayam to the panchayath in respect of the suit property. The defendant No.1, her husband and her father-in-law were in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff and the vendors of the plaintiff were never in possession of the suit property. When the defendant No.1 was preparing to put up wall on the eastern side and the southern side of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has filed this suit. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. 5. The Trial Court having considered pleadings of the parties framed the issues whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and whether the plaintiff has proved alleged interference and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 6. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10 and examined three witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4. Out of which, the evidence of the P.W.2 has been got discarded by the plaintiff by filing a memo and got marked the documents as Exs.P11 and P12. On the other hand, the defendant No.1(d) examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D21 and the defendants also examined one witness as D.W.2 and closed their side. 7. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that possession has been proved by the plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit and also though discussed in detail with regard to the claim made by the defendant, comes to the conclusion that when revenue entries are challenged, it amounts to interference to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and discussing the same comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has succeeded in proving alleged interference by the defendants and granted the relief. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.23/2018. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.23/2018. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo and also the submission of respective counsel, formulated the points whether the findings in the impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.440/2011 relating to the question of possession and alleged interference are based on improper appreciation of evidence on record and are against the settled principles of law and whether the impugned judgment and decree warrants interference and also considered the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC . 9. The First Appellate Court having considering the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the additional documents which have been placed before the Court invoking Order XLI Rule 27 CPC comes to the conclusion that enable it to pronounce the judgment for any other substantial cause, the Court may allow such evidence of additional documents and considering the documents which have been produced as additional evidence, comes to the conclusion that the grounds which have been contemplated within the ambit of Clause (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC that there are sufficient grounds to permit the appellants to adduce additional evidence. Having answered point No.3 as ‘affirmative’, discussed in detail the factual aspects of the case and documents which have been produced. In paragraph No.24, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the questions involved in this suit are not limited to the deciding of mere question of possession in a suit for injunction simpliciter contrary to the observation made in the impugned judgment and also observed that denial of title and challenge to title of the plaintiff and his vendors by the defendant No.1 in this case raises a cloud on the title of the plaintiff and his vendors in respect of the suit property and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , wherein an observation is made that where the plaintiff, believing that the defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raise a serious dispute or cloud over the plaintiff’s title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any other issue. The First Appellate Court having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred (supra) comes to the conclusion that there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and when such being the case, directed to seek appropriate relief modifying the plaint and remand the matter. 10. Now, the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the First Appellate Court committed an error and without looking into the evidence available on record comes to the conclusion that matter requires deciding of the title involved between the parties, since the claim made by the defendant is also questioning the title and the very observation is erroneous. Learned counsel also would submit that when the suit is filed only for bare injunction and simpliciter for injunction, ought not to have considered title of the parties and the very approach is erroneous. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that there is no specific pleading in the written statement regarding claiming of title and the First Appellate Court for extraneous reasons allowed the appeal and also allowed the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and directed to amend the plaint and there cannot be such a direction by the First Appellate Court. Hence, it requires interference. 11. Hence, it requires interference. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1(d) would vehemently contend that specific denial of title was made and claimed that property belongs to defendant No.1 and also contend that the property is an ancestral property originally stands in the name of the father-in-law of the defendant No.1 and after the death of father-in-law, the property records are changed in the name of the defendant No.1 and the documents on record clearly discloses the same. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1(d) would vehemently contend that only based on the sale deed, khatha was transferred and the same was challenged before the concerned authority and khatha changed in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the same is questioned before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court reversed the same and the same is challenged before the High Court and the matter is remanded to the concerned authority to take a decision in this regard. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that after remand also, order has been passed in terms of Ex.D21 and the same has not been challenged and it has attained its finality. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when title is disputed and when claim is made in respect of the suit schedule property by the defendant No.1 and all the properties even prior to the sale deed exists in the name of the defendant No.1’s father-in-law and subsequent to the death of father-in- law, all the revenue records are also transferred in the name of the defendant No.1. When such material is placed, the First Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that there is dispute with regard to the title and matter requires to be decided by the Trial Court having amended the plaint and the same is to be converted as a suit for declaration. Learned counsel would vehemently contend referring the judgment of the Apex Court in case, wherein an observation is made that when there is a title dispute and cloud on the title, matter requires to be considered amending the plaint and comprehensive suit has to be filed and based on the said judgment only, the remand is made. 12. Learned counsel would vehemently contend referring the judgment of the Apex Court in case, wherein an observation is made that when there is a title dispute and cloud on the title, matter requires to be considered amending the plaint and comprehensive suit has to be filed and based on the said judgment only, the remand is made. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1(d), the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error that it is necessary to file comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief to adjudicate the rights of the parties by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.? (2) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in holding that the parties have not filed any application before the Trial Court to make recourse to provisions under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for local inspection? (3) What order? Point Nos.(1) and (2) 13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1(d) and particularly, it is not in dispute the plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction, based on the sale deed which has been executed in the year 2011 and also documents which have been transferred based on the sale deed. It is also not in dispute that when khatha was changed in the name of the plaintiff, the same has been challenged by the defendants. It is also important to note that First Appellate Court having considered the dispute involved between the parties, particularly referring the judgment of the Apex Court in A case, extracted the principles in paragraph No.24 of the judgment. Having perused the plaint averments, the plaintiff claims the relief of only permanent injunction and not sought for any relief of declaration. The defendant, who filed written statement i.e., defendant No.1 specifically contended in paragraph No.8 of the written statement that it is the defendant No.1 has got every right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and also in paragraph No.15, having denied all averments made in the plaint, specifically pleaded that the defendant has put up the patched roofing with asbestos sheet with the help of iron pillars and stocked cement bricks to put up wall on the eastern side and southern side only. It is also specifically pleaded in paragraph No.17 that suit schedule property originally belongs to father-in-law of the defendant No.1. He was in possession and it is an ancestral property and subsequent to the death of father-in-law, property was transferred in the name of the defendant No.1 and all the family members were residing in the suit schedule property and claimed the title with regard to the very suit schedule property and denied the title of the plaintiff and also title of the vendor. 14. Having considered the pleadings of the plaint as well as the written statement and also considering the material available on record and also it is not in dispute with regard to the transfer of khatha is concerned, appeals are filed before the differing authorities and Ex.D21 also discloses that even after remand also, ordered to keep the khatha of the property in the name of defendant No.1 and when there is a title dispute between the parties in respect of the very same property and both of them claim the title in respect of the property and the judgment has been applied by the First Appellate Court i.e., case is very clear that when there is a cloud on the title in respect of the suit schedule property, the comprehensive relief is to avail the remedy by filing a suit for declaration. 15. It is also important to note that in the judgment of the First Appellate Court also, while discussing the judgment of the Apex Court in case, extracted the observations made in the said judgment, wherein also specific observation is made where the plaintiff, believing that the defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit for injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title claimed by him, which raise a serious dispute or cloud over the plaintiff’s title, then there is a need for the plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. 16. Alternatively, he may withdraw the suit for bare injunction, with permission of the Court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. 16. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment and when there is a clear dispute with regard to the title is concerned, since the defendant No.1 also claims title in respect of the suit schedule property and both of them also agitated the issue before the concerned authorities also with regard to the transfer of khatha and ultimately, defendant No.1 succeeded in terms of Ex.D21 that khatha stands in the name of defendant having allowed the appeal. When such claim is made and when there is cloud on the title of the property and rightly relied upon by the judgment in case and directed the appellant to seek for an order of comprehensive suit and if plaintiff is not ready to amend the suit for the comprehensive relief, it is left to him to file a separate suit as observed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case seeking the relief of comprehensive suit. But, the First Appellate Court taken note of the title dispute between the parties and cloud on the title and given opportunity to the plaintiff to seek appropriate relief in the comprehensive suit and when the interest of the plaintiff was also taken note of by the First Appellate Court and also an opportunity is given to both the parties to lead their evidence in respect of their contentions and matter has to be adjudicated with regard to the title is concerned, since both of them are claiming title in respect of the very same property and suit for simpliciter cannot be a relief. 17. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in allowing the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and also giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in respect of their respective claim and direction given to amend the suit for comprehensive relief is also for the benefit of the plaintiff or otherwise he has to seek for the relief of comprehensive suit by filing an independent suit and instead of that, directed to seek for appropriate relief, that too in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in case. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel for the appellant that case is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand cannot be accepted, since there is title dispute with regard to the property involved between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant No.1 also specifically claims right in respect of the very same property and the same is an ancestral property of defendant No.1’s father-in-law and relies upon the records that prior to the sale deed of the year 2011 also, the property was standing in the name of father-in- law and subsequent to the death of the father in law, same was transferred in the name of defendant No.1. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in remanding the matter. Hence, I answer the point Nos.(1) and (2) framed by this Court accordingly. Point No.(3) 18. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of nine months. (iii) The appellant and the respondents are directed to appear before the Trial Court on without expecting any notice from the Trial Court. (iv) Both the appellant and respondents and their respective counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within a period of nine months from (v) The Registry is directed to send the records, forthwith to the concerned Court, to enable the Court to take up the matter without fail on assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within a period of nine months from 14.07.2025. (v) The Registry is directed to send the records, forthwith to the concerned Court, to enable the Court to take up the matter without fail on 14.07.2025. (vi) The observations made hereinabove shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits.