JUDGMENT : M.G. UMA, J. order for remand and expedited appeal" data-page="2" data-para-type="facts" id="1">1. The appellants being defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2007, passed in OS.No.267/1996 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Arsikere allowing the suit for declaration of title and for possession of the property, and judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed in RA No.74/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional CJM, Arsikere, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants, confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. order for remand and expedited appeal" data-page="3" id="2">2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff has filed the suit OS.No.267/1996 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of their title and to that effect that defendants are in permissive procession of the schedule property and for possession of the same. The schedule attached to the plaint describes Sy.No.88/1 measuring 100 X 42 yards and Sy.No.87 measuring 12 guntas of Chikkondihalli village, Kanakatte Hobli, Arasikere Taluk with boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the schedule properties’). It is the contention of the plaintiff that the grandfather and grandmother of the plaintiff, who are none other than the father and mother of defendant No.1 executed two registered gift deeds dated 14.04.1977 bequeathing the schedule properties in her favour out of love and affection, and the plaintiff was put in possession of the same. However, defendants were permitted to be in possession of the properties. The defendants started denying the rights of the plaintiff and therefore, cause of action for the plaintiff arose to seek declaration and possession of the schedule properties. Accordingly, plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit. 4. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It is denied that there was registered gift deeds dated 14.04.1977 as contended by the plaintiff, or that, defendants are in permissive possession of the schedule property. It is contended that defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the properties and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues came to be framed. 1. It is contended that defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the properties and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. 5. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues came to be framed. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are in permissive possession of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the defendants prove that they have perfected their title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession? 4. Whether the defendants prove that suit is barred by law of limitation? 5. What order or decree? 6. Plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to 9 in support of their contention. Defendants examined DWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.D1 to 44 in support their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record answered Issue Nos.1, 2 in the Affirmative and Issue Nos.3, 4 and Additional Issue No.1 in the negative and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs with cost, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and directed the defendants to handover the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants have preferred RA No.74/2007. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal. 7. As per order dated 30.09.2010, the following substantial question of law framed. "Whether the courts below were justified in accepting the validity of the gift deed set up by the plaintiff notwithstanding that there was no indication of the gift having been accepted, which was contrary to the requirement under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act?" 8. Heard Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 to 4. Smt. Kavitha R Reddy, learned counsel for respondent and perused the materials on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that during the pendency of the appeal in RA No.74/2007, the appellants have filed IA No.II under Order 41 Rule of 27 CPC along with documents for consideration of the First Appellate Court as additional evidence. 10. Smt. Kavitha R Reddy, learned counsel for respondent and perused the materials on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that during the pendency of the appeal in RA No.74/2007, the appellants have filed IA No.II under Order 41 Rule of 27 CPC along with documents for consideration of the First Appellate Court as additional evidence. 10. In the order sheet dated 05.10.2007, there is reference to this application and the matter was posted for filing objections to IA No.II. But the First Appellate Court never considered that application while passing the impugned judgment and dismissing the appeal. Hence, he prays for remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration along with the application IA No.II filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent opposing the appeal submitted that there is no reference to the application IA No.II filed by the appellants before the Appellate Court. However, she submits that the respondent is having strong case on merits and prays for passing appropriate orders. She also submits that the suit is of the year 1996 and since then, plaintiff was denied of their right by the defendants on one or the other grounds. Hence, prays for issuing necessary directions to the First Appellate Court for disposal of the appeal in a time bound manner in case the matter is to be remanded to the First Appellate Court. 12. On perusal of the materials on record, the order sheet dated 05.10.2007 in RA No.74/2007, there is reference to filing of IA No.II under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with Additional documents by the appellants and the matter was adjourned for filing objections to IA No.II. After few adjournments, there is no reference to IA No.II. The impugned judgment came to be passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal but admittedly, there is no reference to IA No.II, nor there was any separate order considering IA No.II passed by the First Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, on the sole ground that the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration IA No.II filed by the appellants and passed any orders on the same, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration, by setting aside the impugned judgment. Under such circumstances, on the sole ground that the First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration IA No.II filed by the appellants and passed any orders on the same, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration, by setting aside the impugned judgment. However, I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the suit OS.No.267/1996 was filed in the year 1996 and after lapse of 30 years unfortunately the matter is being remanded to the First Appellate Court. Therefore, necessary directions is required to be issued to the First Appellate Court to dispose off the appeal in a time bound manner. order for remand and expedited appeal" data-page="8" data-para-type="final_conclusion" id="13">13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 15.12.2009 passed in RA No.74/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional CJM, Arsikre is set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration along with IA No.II filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, in accordance with law. (iv) The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose off the appeal expeditiously at least within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. (v) The appellants and respondent are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 28.01.2026. (vi) The respondents are permitted to file objections to IA No.II, if the same is not yet filed. Registry is directed to send back the records to the First Appellate Court along with copy of this judgment.