JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed before this Court challenging the order of remand made by the First Appellate Court. 2. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the relief of declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that in paragraph Nos.23 that Ex.D.28 is the certified copy issued by the competent Thasildar, Devanahalli Taluk. Once the said registered extract is produced by the defendants, the burden shifts on the plaintiff to show that Ex.D.28 is not genuine and it has been created. In order to falsify that the entries shown in Ex.D.28 are not correct, he has not made any attempt to summon the original register from the Thasildar, Devanahalli Taluk nor he has not produced the certified copy showing that Ex.D.28 is not taken from the original register. In the absence of such materials, behalf of the plaintiff, Ex.D.28 cannot be said to be an illegal and incorrect document and also made an observation in paragraph No.24 that Ex.D.28 against the name of the plaintiff father in two columns, it is written in inverted commas meaning of ‘ditto’ in the Oxford English Dictionary ‘in list the same thing again’. Having considered the document Ex.D.28 comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not made out the case and there was already a cancellation of grant and dismissed the suit, the same has been challenged in the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether more, effective and valid evidence is required on Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and Ex.D.28 and also having considered the material available on record the issue between the parties with regard to the Ex.P.4 which plaintiffs relies upon and defendants relies upon the document Ex.D.28. Hence, the Appellate Court having considered the document of Ex.P.4 discussed in paragraph No.15 that Ex.P.4 suit land was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father Muniyappa and his name was entered and continued in RTC right from the year 1993, 1994 till the year 2004, 2005 as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.13. Hence, the Appellate Court having considered the document of Ex.P.4 discussed in paragraph No.15 that Ex.P.4 suit land was granted in favour of the plaintiff's father Muniyappa and his name was entered and continued in RTC right from the year 1993, 1994 till the year 2004, 2005 as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.13. No doubt the defendants have produced Panchayat Parikath as per Ex.D.2 and also taken note of Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.8 as well as Ex.D.19 to Ex.D.22, besides that they have also produced certified copy of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner that is as per Ex.D.23 to Ex.D.27 and apart from that document Ex.D.28 also relied upon regarding cancellation of the grant and in detail discussed the same in paragraph No.16 and comes to the conclusion that the document of Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 nothing is found when the grant was cancelled and also comes to the conclusion that competent person to speak on Ex.P.4 which the plaintiff relies upon and Ex.D.28 also which the defendants relies upon and revenue officials who is well acquainted with those documents to be examined before the Trial Court. Hence, comes to the conclusion that only on the basis of ambiguous marks, rights of the parties cannot be decided, unless competent witness is examined to speak on those two documents and therefore comes to the conclusion that those documents are relied upon without proving of those documents it has resulted into miscarriage of justice and hence directed the parties to examine the competent persons to give evidence on Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 and matter is remanded to the Trial Court. 3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that when the document that is public document of Ex.D.28 is produced, the First Appellate Court ought not have disbelieved the same. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is a presumption under Section 79 of Evidence Act and hence the admission itself is enough to accept the document and P.W.1 categorically admitted that not challenged the very cancellation and it is only a Panchayat document. 4. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is a presumption under Section 79 of Evidence Act and hence the admission itself is enough to accept the document and P.W.1 categorically admitted that not challenged the very cancellation and it is only a Panchayat document. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court has not committed any error when the decision is to be taken with regard to the rights of the parties is concerned, categorical observation is made that in order to prove the document of Ex.P.4 and also Ex.D.28, competent witnesses to be examined or otherwise it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. 5. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also the claim made by the plaintiff before the Trial Court that land was granted in the year 1942 and also they relies upon the register of Saguvali Chit which is marked as Ex.P.4. On the other hand defendant also claims that there was a cancellation of the grant and both the plaintiff as well as the appellants have not placed on record any document for having grant of land as well as cancellation of the grant and no such orders are also placed before the Court. When both of them relies upon the document Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, the Appellate Court rightly comes to the conclusion that unless those two documents are proved by examining the witnesses, the Court cannot take any decision or otherwise it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. When both the parties have given opportunity to lead evidence and to examine the competent person to give evidence on Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, I do not find any error. However, both the counsels submit that the same task can be done in the Appellate Court itself instead of remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 6. It is important to note that when the document is already available before the Court Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, Appellate Court itself would have examined the witnesses by giving an opportunity to both parties to prove Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, the witnesses must speak regarding the very validity of the document of Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, instead of reminding the same ought to have taken the decision to examine the witnesses and would have given the definite finding regarding real issue is on Ex.P4 and Ex.D.28. When the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that both the documents Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 are not proved by examining the competent witnesses and hence there is a force in the contention of appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents that matter could be remanded to the First Appellate Court and Appellate Court can examine the witnesses and allow both the plaintiff and defendant to prove the document of Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28, since crux of the issue involved between the parties is in respect of Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28. Hence, the impugned order requires to be set aside. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Second Appeal is allowed. Instead of directing the Trial Court to examine the competent persons, the First Appellate Court is directed to give an opportunity to both the plaintiff as well as defendants to examine the competent witnesses to prove the document Ex.P.4 and Ex.D.28 and take a decision on the documents since crux of the issue involved between the parties is mainly on Ex.P.4 and also Ex.D.28 and this could be done within 6 months. ii) The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 28.07.2025. Both the counsel for appellants and respondents and respective parties are directed to assist the First Appellate Court in disposal of the matter within a time bound period of 6 months. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the matter in a time bound period of 6 months from 28.07.2025. iii) The Registry is directed to send the records to the First Appellate Court forthwith to enable the First Appellate Court to take up the matter on 28.07.2025 without fail.