This appeal challenged a civil decree obtained without plaintiff evidence. The High Court held the trial court erred in decreeing the suit after discarding plaintiff testimony. The judgment set aside the decree and dismissed the suit.
Judgment and decree of trial court dated 24.03.2017 set aside; suit of plaintiffs dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1180 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K SOMASEKHAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N A MOHAN FOR R1., ADVOCATE (ABSENT) R2 AND R4 SERVED R3 IS MINOR REP. BY R1 (ABSENT))
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2017 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, IN O.S.NO.2004/2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.2004/2012 dated 24.03.2017.
No representation on behalf of respondents.
the property and another son Govindappa shall look after Krishnamurthy regarding his treatment and other aspects. The
1st plaintiff's father-in-law died in the year 1997 and subsequently, her husband Govindappa also passed away and thereafter, 1st plaintiff's husband and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were in the possession of the property and the defendants are interfering for the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs have asserted that husband of 1st plaintiff informed about the existence of the " Will' and came to know about their legitimate right, possession and ownership over the suit
NC: 2023:KHC:35743 RFA No. 1180 of 2017
schedule property, but the defendants trying to take possession over the schedule property and causing interference. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for reliefs.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
posted for cross-examination but the plaintiff not appeared for cross examination and the evidence of the plaintiff taken as discarded by order dated 23.03.2016. Later, the matter was posted for defendants' evidence, accordingly, 2nd defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and marked 2 documents as per Exs.D1 and D2. Subsequently, the trial Court proceeded to pass decree by decreeing the suit which is under challenge.
NC: 2023:KHC:35743 RFA No. 1180 of 2017
the appellants, the point that arises for consideration is:
enjoyment of the property, the interference caused by the defendant and show that they are entitled for the decree and the injunction against them.
the trial Court, the trial Court categorically held that the examination-in-chief of PW.1 i.e., 1st plaintiff was expunged or discarded from the record that means there is "Nil evidence" of the plaintiff, in the case. When there is no evidence of plaintiffs, the trial Court has committed an error in posting the case for defendants' evidence instead of dismissing the suit for nonprosecution.
NC: 2023:KHC:35743 RFA No. 1180 of 2017
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed .
The judgment and decree passed by XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.2004/2012 dated 24.03.2017 is hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PSJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the judgment of the trial court which decreed the suit despite discarding the plaintiff's evidence as nil?
Whether decreeing the suit in the absence of any evidence led by the plaintiff amounts to an error of law?
Whether the trial court was justified in proceeding to pass a decree after expunging the plaintiff's evidence?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI RAVI S/O MUNIRAJU
SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O ANJANI
SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O RAMESH
SMT SUNITHA M W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
SRI NAVEEN G S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
MASTER NANDAKUMAR G S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA
K.NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
