In this second appeal regarding property partition, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal by the appellants, noting that they failed to object to the Commissioner report at the First Appellate Court stage and thus cannot raise the same in a second appeal.
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 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
S/O. KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KOLAHAL VILLAGE, BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519.
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O. KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KOLAHAL VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLY VILLAGE, MAYAKONDA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 534.
CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 519.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.7/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHELDING THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2021 PASSED IN FDP NO.4/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE C/c. I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 20 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the
learned counsel for the appellants.
mentioned in schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’. Admittedly, the appellants have not filed any objection to the Commissioner report before the FDP Court before drawing the final decree. When the same is not objected before the FDP Court, now, the learned counsel for the appellants cannot contend that the allotment of share is not correct. If the appellants are having any grievance, they ought to have raised the same before the FDP Court itself and when no objection is filed before the FDP Court and accepted the Commissioner report, now the appellants again cannot raise the same before this Court in a second appeal. Hence, I do not find any error in the order passed by the First Appellate Court and the FDP Court since, the very appellants have not filed any objection for the Commissioner report in the FDP Court, before drawing the final decree. Therefore, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81
1 issue framed by the court
whether an appeal filed by appellants who did not object to the Commissioner report before the First Appellate Court can be admitted under Section 100 of CPC
Manjappa & Others
Smt. Sarvamangalamma & Others
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
