THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO SECOND APPEAL No.262 of 1995 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Though notices have been served, none appears for the respondents. Originally, the suit was filed by appellant No.1 and during the pendency of the present appeal, he died. Hence, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 4. This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff, who seeks to assail the correctness of the judgment and decree, dated 30.10.1992, passed in A.S.No.21 of 1988 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam in reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.08.1988, in O.S.No.14 of 1980 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Palakonda. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the suit, appellant No.1 sought for recovery of possession of Acs.0.62 cents of dry land as shown in the plaint schedule claiming title in himself. On the other hand, the respondents herein, who are the defendants in the suit, denied the claim of title of appellant No.1 and also raised several other pleas. The trial Court after framing the issues and after concluding the trial, where both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit. As against the same, the respondents filed the appeal, A.S.No.21 of 1988 before the lower appellate Court. After considering the submissions on both sides, the lower appellate Court has given findings specifically to the effect that appellant No.1 has failed to prove his title anterior to Ex.A1 and that the respondents-defendants have also failed to establish their title by adverse possession. The lower Appellate Court has further observed that since the suit is based on a title, mere fact that the respondents failed to prove their title does not come to the rescue of appellant No.1 and apart from that, appellant No.1 also failed to prove that the respondents have encroached into the land in question. While observing thus, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Having aggrieved by the same, appellant No.1 has filed the present second appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and also after perusing the material on record, it is seen that in a suit for recovery of possession, title plays a very significant role. In a case of this nature, it has to be examined as to whether the relief sought for by the plaintiff is based on the title. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, the learned District Munsif held that appellant No.1 has made out his case by producing the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A28 to prove his title in respect of the schedule property. Having aggrieved by the same, the respondents carried the matter in the first appeal. The lower appellate Court has to examine as to whether the findings arrived at by the trial Court are correct or not in the light of the documentary evidence adduced by either of the parties. In this case, the lower appellate held that appellant No.1 as well as the respondents have failed to prove their title over the suit schedule property and simply allowed the appeal without deciding in whose favour the title of the property vests. In this background of the matter and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the proceedings and for an affective adjudication of the issue involved in the lis, I feel it is a fit case wherein the matter can be remitted back to the lower Appellate Court for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed setting aside the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.21 of 1988 on 30.10.1992 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both the parties, being uninfluenced by the observations, if any of this Court as well as the findings already recorded by the Courts below. However, since the suit is of the year 1980 and the appeal is of the year 1988, it is just and proper to direct the lower appellate Court to dispose of the appeal within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J Dt:22.07.201009 kdl