The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2011 (PAR) BETWEEN: MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, RESIDING AT DANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE, KOOTGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. (BY SRI PRADEEP J S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N SUBBA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND: 1. SMT. SHIVARUDRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE MADAIAH, RESIDING AT DANAYAKANABURA VILLAGE, KOOTGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. 1(a) SMT JAYALAKSHMI, W/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.37, 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2.
Legal Reasoning
SRI M. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR S/O LATE MADAIAH, 3. SRI. KARADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, 3(a) SMT.SULOCHANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE KARADAIAH, 3(b) SHRI NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE KARADAIAH, LRS OF R3(a) AND 3(b) ARE BOTH R/AT DANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE, KOOTGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. 3(c) SMT SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AND D/O LATE KARADAIAH, W/O SHRI RAVI, R/AT SANKALAGERE VILLAGE, MATTIKERE SHETTIHALLI POST, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. 3(d) SMT CHANNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LATE KARADAIAH, W/O SHRI RAJA, R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI, BEVOOR POST, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. 4. SRI. BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR 5. 6. S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, SRI. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF DANAYAKANAPURA VILLAGE, KOOTGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. 7. SMT. CHIKKAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS 7(a) SRI VENKATESH, S/O LATE KENCHMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HELIGEHALLI VILLAGE, MATTIKERE POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PIN - 562159. 7(b) SMT LAKSHMAMMA, W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DANAYANKANPURA VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571511. 7(c) SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI @ CHIKKTHAYAMMA, W/O DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, BELAGAVADI, MATTIKERE POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR 7(d) SMT UMA, W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BALENAHALLI VILLAGE, MATTIKERE POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159. 7(e) SMT SHARADAMMA, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DANDIGEPURA VILLAGE, MATTIKERE POST, MADABAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159. 8. 9. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O CHIKKABORAIAH, RESIDENT AT JAYAPURA VILLAGE, BILGUMBA POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571511. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O BYRAPPA, RESIDING AT PADARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511. (BY SRI. L P SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A-D), SRI N S BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A), 2, R4 - R6, R7 (A TO E) AND R9, SRI C R SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R1(A) IS SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.1.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.47/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.9.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.211/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) RAMANAGARAM. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in disposing the appeal without passing any order on the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant as well as respondents seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents?" 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Defendants took a stand that the properties are already partitioned. Accepting the defence, the suit is dismissed. 3. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and filed an application seeking leave of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR the Court to file additional documents. Defendants also filed application seeking to produce additional documents. 4. The First Appellate Court heard the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal. However, the applications for production of additional documents are not considered and no orders are passed on the said applications. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and decrees, plaintiff is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in addition to pointing out to the fact that the application for production of additional documents have not been considered by the First Appellate Court, in addition, would also submit that the defendants who had taken a defence of previous partition in the year 1963 and now have filed one more suit in O.S. No. 211/1998 in the year 2012 contending that the partition took place in the family after 1993 i.e., after the death of propositus. Thus, the appellants urge - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR that the very stand taken by the defendants that the partition took place in the year 1963 is shown to be erroneous in view of the new plea raised in O.S. No.211/1998. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the contentions raised relating to the second suit filed by the defendants and the plea taken in the second suit are not placed before the Court and appellants cannot be permitted to raise such contentions without producing the plaint of the second suit. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application filed by the appellants as well as the respondents for production of additional documents before the First Appellate Court are not considered. 8. It is well-settled position of law that when an application for production of additional documents is filed before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court is required to consider the said application on merit along - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR with the merits of the appeal. The First Appellate Court has considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the appeal. However, there is no adjudication on the applications for production of additional documents. The First Appellate Court was required to consider whether the applications filed for production of additional documents deserved to be allowed or not? Such exercise is not carried out by the First Appellate Court. Hence the judgment and decree of the First appellate Court need to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 9. Hence, the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 on the file of Fast Track Court, Ramanagar in RA No.47/2007 are set- aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court to consider the appeal on - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19076 RSA No. 676 of 2011 HC-KAR merits along with the applications for production of additional documents filed by the appellant as well as the respondents. (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (v) In case, the appellant files one more application for production of additional documents to bring to the notice of the Court regarding the subsequent developments which has taken place in the year 2012, said application shall also be considered along with merits of the appeal after considering the objection if any, to be filed by the respondents. (vi) Parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court on 27.06.2025 without any further notice. (vii) Registry to send back the records forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 125