Allowed

Smt Ramakka W/O Doddaiah v. Smt Ashwathamma

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2023RSA/44/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the First Appellate Court failed to address the High Court's specific direction in RSA No.186/2008 to appoint another Commissioner regarding signature disputes and frame appropriate points. Consequently, the second appeals were allowed, the First Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Second appeals allowed. Common judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside. Matter remitted to First Appellate Court for fresh consideration.

Smt Ramakka W/O Doddaiah Vs Smt Ashwathamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2012 (SP)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2012 (INJ)

¶10

IN RSA No.44 OF 2012

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT RAMAKKA W/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/OF DASARAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 129

¶13

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DODDAIAH S/O VEERANAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶15

2(A) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O R.L. SHIVA SHANKAR D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/OF REDDYHALLI (POST) MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 132

¶16

2(B) VEERANAGAPPA S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶18

R/AT DASARAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶19

2(C) SMT. NAGAMANI W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT YELE RAMPURA (POST) KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SMT ASHWATHAMMA AGED 62 YEARS W/O G N RAMAIAH R/OF GARUGADODDI, KASABA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129

¶24

SMT. MANJULA W/O T. RAGHU KUMAR D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/OF BURUGANAHALLI VODDAGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. B C RAJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R SRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.433/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-V, MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.1998 PASSED IN

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶29

O.S.NO.58/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC KORATAGERE.

¶30

IN RSA No.45 OF 2012

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SMT RAMAKKA W/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/OF DASARAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 129

¶33

DODDAIAH S/O VEERANAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

¶34

2(A) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O R.L. SHIVA SHANKAR D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/OF REDDYHALLI (POST) MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 132

¶35

2(B) VEERANAGAPPA S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT DASARAHALLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶36

2(C) SMT. NAGAMANI W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT YELE RAMPURA (POST) KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶37

…APPELLANTS

¶38

(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶41

AND:

¶42

SMT ASHWATHAMMA AGED 62 YEARS W/O G N RAMAIAH

¶43

G.N. RAMAIAH S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶44

BOTH ARE R/OF GARUDADODDI, KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶45

SMT. MANJULA W/O T. RAGHU KUMAR D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/OF BURUGANAHALLI VODDAGERE POST, KASABA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 129

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. L.M. RAMAIAH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶48

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.11.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.207/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-V, MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.1998 PASSED IN O.S.NO.107/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC KORATAGERE.

¶49

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

These second appeals are filed by the appellants challenging the common judgment and decree dated 17.11.2011, passed in R.A.Nos.433/2004 and 207/2000 by the Fast Track Court V, Madhugiri.

¶53

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court in O.S.No.174/1983 (old number), New O.S.No.58/1989.

¶54

The appellants No.1 and 2 in RSA No.44/2012 are defendants No.1 and 2; and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff.

¶55

The brief facts leading rise to filing of suit in O.S.No.58/1989 are as under:

¶56

Ashwathamma – plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property belongs to Ramakka - defendant No.1, and Doddaiah - defendant No.2 is the husband of Ramakka who are members of joint family. The defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property

¶57

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶58

for a consideration of Rs.5,000/on 30.07.1980. Ramakka executed sale deed on the stamp paper by receiving full consideration amount and put Ashwathamma in possession of the suit schedule property. Since the villagers were agitating for acquisition of some of the portion of the suit schedule property, they submitted a petition to the authorities requesting not to register the sale deed. As there were acquisition proceedings of portion of suit schedule property, writ petition was filed through the mother of defendant No.1, Nagamma before the Hon'ble High Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed and acquisition proceedings were quashed. Ashwathamma was/is ready and willing to perform her part of contract. Ramakka - defendant No.1 is liable to execute registered sale deed in favour of the Ashwathamma - plaintiff. Inspite of oral demands, Ramakka failed to execute the registered sale deed. Ashwathamma got issued legal notice calling upon Ramakka to execute registered sale deed. Ramakka replied the legal notice denying the execution of sale deed

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶61

dated 30.07.1983. Hence cause of action arose for Ashwathamma to file the suit for specific performance of contract.

¶62

The defendants – Ramakka and Doddaiah filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings were challenged in the writ petition and the said writ petition came to be allowed. It is further contended that the defendants have received legal notice from Ashwathamma and the same was replied. There is no cause of action for the Ashwathamma to file the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. It is contended that Ramakka - defendant No.1 had no title to the suit property as the portion of it was vested in the Government. The alienation of the land was prohibited and the sale in favour of defendant No.1 by Nagamma was only nominal, only in order to obviate the land acquisition proceedings and hence sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶63

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶64

Defendants – Ramakka and Doddaiah in

¶65

O.S.No.58/1989 filed a suit in O.S.No.206/1984 (old number), New O.S.No.107/1989 against Ashwathamma, the plaintiff and one Ramaiah for permanent injunction. It is the case of the Ramakka and Doddaiah that Ramakka is the owner of the suit schedule property and having purchased the same from Nagamma under registered sale deed dated 25.08.1975. Ever since the date of sale, Ramakka and her husband Doddaiah are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ashwathamma i.e., defendant No.1 and another G.N.Ramaiah have no right, title, interest in the suit schedule property. They are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by Ramakka and Doddaiah alleging that an agreement of sale was executed in their favour. Ramakka and her husband requested Ashwathamma and Ramaiah not to interfere, but they tried to interfere into the peaceful possession. Hence cause of action arose to file the suit for permanent injunction.

¶66

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶67

Ashwathamma filed written statement denying

¶68

the averments made in the plaint and reiterated the plaint averments pleaded by her in O.S.No.58/1989 and sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶69

The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of

¶70

the parties, framed the following issues:

¶71

ISSUES IN O.S.NO.58/1989

¶72

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants received Rs.5,000/on 30/7/1980 and agreed to sell the suit schedule property to her?

¶73

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that she was put in possession of the suit schedule property?

¶74

3) Whether the suit is not in time?

¶75

4) Whether the suit is not maintainable?

¶76

5) Whether the first defendant has no title to the suit property?

¶77

6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

¶78

7) What order?

¶79

ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S.NO.58/1989

¶80

1) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff get unfair advantage over the defendant if specific performance is granted?

¶81

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶82

2) Whether the document dated 30/7/1980 is not enforceable in view of the provisions of the Registration Act?

¶83

ISSUES IN O.S.NO.107/1989

¶84

1) Whether plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit land?

¶85

2) Whether defendants prove that in persuasions to a contract of sale they have been put in possession of the suit property?

¶86

3) Is the suit not maintainable?

¶87

4) Whether the description of the plaint schedule property is true and correct?

¶88

5) Is the alleged interference true?

¶89

6) To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?

¶90

7) What order?

¶91

The trial Court clubbed both the suits and recorded common evidence. Ashwathamma was

¶92

examined as PW-1 and examined 5 witnesses as PW-2 to PW-6 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. Doddaiah was examined as DW-1 and Ramakka was examined as DW-2 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.D1 to D16. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1 to 5 in the negative; additional issue No.2 in

¶93

11 -

¶94

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶95

affirmative; additional issue No.1 does not arise for consideration; and issue No.6 as per the final order in O.S.No.58/1989. Issue Nos.1, 4, 5 in affirmative; issue Nos.2 and 3 in negative; issue Nos.6 and 7 as per final order in O.S.No.107/1989 and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by Ashwathamma in O.S.No.58/1989 and decreed the suit filed by Ramakka and Doddaiah in O.S.No.107/1989. It is ordered and declared that Ramakka is the absolute owner in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of suit. It is ordered that Ashwathamma and Ramaiah are restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with Ramakka's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶96

Ashwathamma aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.58/1989, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.433/2004. Ashwathamma and G.N.Ramaiah aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.107/1989 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.207/2000.

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶99

The appeal filed by Ashwathamma in R.A.No.433/2004 was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Ashwathamma aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, preferred a second appeal in RSA No.186/2008. This Court, vide judgment dated 29.11.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the

¶100

judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration along with R.A.No.207/2000. The First Appellate Court, clubbed both the appeals and after hearing the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

¶101

1. Whether the lower appellate court has wrongly discarded the Commissioner's report and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Ashwathamma illegally?

¶102

2. What order?

¶103

The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 as per the final order and consequently allowed the appeal filed by Ashwathamma

¶104

13 -

¶105

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶106

and decreed the suit in O.S.No.58/1989. It is ordered and decreed that Ramakka and Doddaiah are directed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to Smt. Ashwathamma and directed them to execute the sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Koratagere in accordance with law at their own costs in favour of Ashwathamma within 30 days from the date of passing the judgment and directed to pay the costs of the litigation with respect to the suit property to Smt. Ashwathamma and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.107/1989. Ramakka and Doddaiah aggrieved by the common judgment passed in the aforesaid appeals, filed these second appeals.

¶107

This court admitted the appeals on the following substantial question of law :

¶108

"Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court to hold that the trial Court had wrongly discarded the Commissioner's report without the consideration of material evidence on record, both oral and documentary evidence, appropriately the Commissioner's report and testimony?"

¶109

14 -

¶110

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶111

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶112

Learned counsel Sri. Gangadharappa appearing

¶113

for Ramakka and Doddaiah submits that the First Appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. He submits that this Court in RSA No.186/2008 has observed that it would be incumbent on the lower appellate court to appoint another Commissioner to obtain his opinion as to the signatures of Ramakka and

¶114

Doddaiah said to be found in Ex.P1 and to frame such other points for consideration which would arise having regard to the opinion expressed by the High Court. He submits that the First Appellate Court without considering the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid appeal, has passed the impugned judgment. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the Commissioner's report. The impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not in conformity with the observation made by this Court in the aforesaid appeal. Hence he submits that the matter requires to be

¶115

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶116

reconsidered by the First Appellate Court and prays to allow the appeals.

¶117

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.L.M.Ramaiah Gowda appearing for Ashwathamma submits that the First Appellate Court on reassessment of oral and documentary evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment and hence he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeals.

¶118

Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶119

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW : Smt.

¶120

Ashwathamma filed a suit for specific performance of contract contending that Smt. Ramakka is the owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.5,000/- and received the consideration amount and executed sale deed

¶121

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶122

on the stamp paper on 30.07.1983. But the said sale deed was not registered. Doddaiah had also participated in the negotiation and attested his signature on sale deed as consenting witness. Ramakka delivered possession of the suit schedule property in favour of Ashwathamma. Further, since the villagers were agitating for acquisition of

¶123

some of the portion of suit schedule property, they submitted a representation to the authorities requesting not to register the sale deed. An acquisition proceeding was initiated. The said acquisition proceeding was challenged in the writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed. After the disposal of the writ petition, Ashwathamma orally requested Ramakka to execute registered sale deed, but Ramakka failed to execute registered sale deed. Ashwathamma got issued legal notice calling upon Ramakka and Doddaiah to execute registered sale deed. Ramakka and Doddaiah gave a reply to the legal notice denying the execution of sale deed.

¶124

17 -

¶125

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶126

Ashwathamma in support of her case examined herself as PW-1 and she has reiterated the plaint averments in her examination-in-chief and got marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to P18. Further, in order to prove the execution of sale deed, examined 4 witnesses as PW-2 to PW-5. In rebuttal, Doddaiah was examined as DW-1 and reiterated the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief and got marked Ex.D1 to D16. Ramakka was examined as DW-2 and she has reiterated the examination-in-chief of DW-1. During the pendency of the suit, Ashwathamma filed an application in I.A.No.9 praying to appoint a handwriting expert attached to the Fingerprint Bureau, Bangalore as a Commissioner to compare the signatures of Ramakka and Doddaiah with the signatures on Ex.P1 - sale deed and to furnish his opinion. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 30.09.1991. The said Ex.P1 was referred for the Commissioner to compare the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. Pursuant to the order passed by the trial Court, the Commissioner has submitted

¶127

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶128

18 -

¶129

the report. None of the parties have filed objections to the Commissioner's report. The Court Commissioner was examined as PW-6 and got marked Ex.C1 and C2. The trial Court declined to accept the Commissioner's report on the ground that on the date of execution of warrant, the Commissioner was not in Government service and after retirement PW-6 has used the Government seal and photographs from private studio. The trial Court recorded a finding that Smt. Ashwathamma has failed to prove the execution of Ex.P1 and also declined to consider the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 and further recorded a finding that Ramakka is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and consequently dismissed the suit in O.S.No.58/1989 for specific performance of contract and decreed the suit in O.S.No.107/1989 for permanent injunction. Ashwathamma aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.58/1989 preferred appeal in R.A.No.433/2004 and Ashwathamma & Ramaiah aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.107/1989

¶130

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶131

preferred appeal in R.A.No.207/2000. Initially the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in R.A.No.433/2004

¶132

vide judgment dated 05.10.2007. Ashwathamma aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, preferred a second appeal in RSA No.186/2008. This Court, vide judgment dated 29.11.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court observing as under:

¶133

"5. Given the above facts and circumstances, the question of law as to whether a suit for specific performance was maintainable in the face of the deed in question being executed as a sale deed and registration of the same not having been completed for various reasons would disentitle the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance need not detain this Court for long having regard to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalavakurti Venkata Subbaiah supra. Therefore, the finding of the Courts below that such a suit was not maintainable cannot be sustained. Secondly, insofar as the rejection of the Commissioner's

¶134

20 -

¶135

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶136

Report to the effect that the signatures found on Exhibit P.1 were that of defendant No. 1 having been negated is not tenable even if the said witness was guilty of having utilised office-seals which he was not entitled to do, the —Validity of his report could not have been rejected off-hand. Insofar as the tenor of Order XXVI, Rule 9 or Order XXVI, Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure I908 is concerned, these are provisions which enables the Court to seek the assistance of such persons or expert in order to conduct a local investigation in order to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is an enabling provision which is invoked by the Court at its discretion. It is not a right conferred on a party where by on the application of a party if a commissioner is appointed. If for some reason, the report was not acceptable and the Court rejected the same as if it is tendered by the plaintiff, though the report of the Court Commissioner forms part of the evidence was out of place. If the Court has not been satisfied of the expert's evidence, it was incumbent on the Court to have appointed another Commissioner in a serious dispute such as this. The expert had opined that the signature on Ex.P1 was that of

¶137

21 -

¶138

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶139

the first defendant, and this was all the more the reasons for the Court to have appointed yet another Court Commissioner if it was so warranted. The rejection of his report in the Circumstances as aforesaid results in a miscarriage of justice. The incidental insufficiency in the evidence of PW-1 is not being able to assert categorically as to the execution of the document at Exhibit P.1 by the first defendant could not also be a ground to negate the entire transaction. When a suit is brought by the plaintiff based on Exhibit P.1 with express pleadings to that effect, bungling by the witnesses in the witness-box, which may have been on account of so many factors, could not by itself negate the entire express pleadings of the party and the documents which were placed before the Court. The further negation of the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 is also not readily acceptable. In any event, the suit filed by the defendant having been decreed in favour of the defendant and that pending consideration in an appeal would require that the present suit be remanded to the lower appellate court for a fresh consideration along with the appeal that is pending and if in the event that the lower

¶140

22 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶141

appellate court should feel that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the Commissioner's Report, it would be incumbent on the lower appellate court to appoint yet another Commissioner to obtain his opinion, as to the signatures of the defendant said to be found in Exhibit P.1 and to frame such other points for consideration, which would arise having regard to the opinion expressed by this Court in the light of the law as aforesaid and to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law along with the pending appeal in R.A.No.2007/2000."

¶142

(emphasis supplied)

¶143

From the perusal of the judgment passed by the

¶144

First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has not recorded any finding as to, whether the trial Court was justified in rejecting the Court Commissioner's report. Without recording any finding on the report of the Court Commissioner, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not in terms of the observation

¶145

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶146

made by this Court in RSA No.186/2008. On this ground

¶147

alone, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶148

In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶149

ORDER

¶150

The appeals are allowed.

¶151

The common judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside.

¶152

The matters are remitted to the First Appellate Court for fresh consideration in terms of the observation made by this Court in para-5 of the judgment passed in RSA No.186/2008, disposed of on 29.11.2010.

¶153

The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 04.01.2024.

¶154

The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeals within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶155

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶156

24 -

¶157

NC: 2023:KHC:41648 RSA No.44 of 2012 c/w RSA No.45 of 2012

¶158

The First Appellate Court is directed to hear Smt. Manjula, respondent herein before passing the judgment.

¶159

No order as to the cost.

¶160

SD/JUDGE

¶161

Smt Ramakka W/O Doddaiah v. Smt Ashwathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ramakka W/O Doddaiah v. Smt Ashwathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt v Shelvi Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Shweta Vinod Nair Vs the Registrar (Evaluation)

Sri Basavarajaiah Vs Smt. Prameelamma

Venkateshappa Vs Venkatamma

Sri. Srinivas A.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Shalet Mathais Vs Mr Mathew Mathais