Sri. C. Jayachandra v. Sri. Narasappa

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025RSA/2288/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), RSA No. 2288 of 2018, Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, decided 15.10.2025 — second appeal under Section 100 CPC allowed with remand where the first appellate court failed to re-appreciate evidence; Dharakasth grant of 1978 versus adverse RTC entry; Order XLI Rule 27 CPC additional evidence application; suit O.S.No.620/2014 and first appeal R.A.No.69/2016, Chickballapur; declaration and permanent injunction; original appellant died 25.05.2021, LRs substituted by order dated 20.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal allowed; matter remanded to the first appellate Court for fresh consideration, with directions to re-appreciate the evidence, decide the Order XLI Rule 27 CPC application, and dispose of the matter within six months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶60

Sri. C. Jayachandra Vs Sri. Narasappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the first appellate Court's failure to re-appreciate the evidence and to consider Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 together with the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC warranted interference in the second appeal and remand of the matter for fresh consideration. +1 more

¶¶58

Court's answer

The first appellate Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence and failed to consider Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 along with the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court for fresh consideration.

¶¶60

Key takeaways

The first appellate Court shall re-appreciate the evidence, consider and decide the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (DEC/INJ) under Section 100 CPC: the plaintiff sued for declaration of lawful right and permanent injunction over land acquired by her father Chicknarayanappa under a Dharakasth dated 30.10.1978 in LND No.1128/1977-78, mutation having been effected on payment of Kimath charges (challan dated 16.03.1978); the defendants were placed ex parte. The trial court dismissed the suit solely because the RTC entry did not stand in the plaintiff's name, ignoring the source of title and the 1978 grant certificate. The first appellate court in R.A.No.69/2016 confirmed the dismissal without re-appreciating the evidence or considering Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Held: appeal allowed and the matter remanded to the first appellate court for fresh consideration, with directions to re-appreciate the evidence, decide the Order XLI Rule 27 application, and dispose of the matter within six months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2288 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. C. JAYACHANDRA S/O LATE CHICKA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT MARASANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT

¶9

(DIED ON 25.05.2021 AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DTD 20.01.2025)

¶10

SINCE DIED BY LRS

¶11

1(A) SMT. CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O LATE, M.C. JAYACHANDRA

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1(B) SANTOSH KUMAR M.J

¶14

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶15

S/O LATE M.C.JAYACHANDRA

¶16

1(C) KRUTHIKA M.J AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C. JAYACHANDRA

¶17

1(D)HARSHAITHA M.J AGED AABOUT 16 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA (GAURDIAN DISCHARGED)

¶18

1(E) SAHANA M.J AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DAUGHTER OF LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA

¶22

1(F) PRAVEEN KUMAR M.J AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, S/O LATE, M.C JAYACHANDRA

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARASANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK- 562101.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. M.SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.M.CHOWDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR A1(ATO F); V/O DTD 09.09.2025 )

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI. NARASAPPA S/O POJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT MARASANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶28

THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶29

THE TAHSILDAR CHICKKABALLAPUR

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. MALLAIAH M R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. CHANDINI.S, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶32

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.69/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.620.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC CHICKBALLAPUR.

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.08.2018 passed by the

¶41

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur in R.A.No.69/2016, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2016 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Chickballapur in O.S.No.620/2014.

¶42

The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

¶43

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which was originally acquired by her father, Chicknarayanappa, from the Assistant Commissioner under a Dharakasth dated 30.10.1978 in LND No.1128/1977-78. The mutation of the said property was duly effected in the name of the plaintiff’s father upon payment of Kimath charges at the rate of Rs.95/-, as evidenced by challan dated 16.03.1978. All documents pertaining to the property stand in the name of Chicknarayanappa. The plaintiff contends that the defendant, without any lawful right, title or interest, has interfered with and obstructed agricultural operations of the plaintiff. The earlier RTC records reflect the name of Chicknarayanappa as the holder and also indicate the Government’s name without proper authority, necessitating the inclusion of defendants No.2 and 3 as formal parties. Consequently, the plaintiff, having suffered interference in the first week of October 2014, has instituted the suit seeking a declaration of her lawful right

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

and a consequential decree of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property.

¶50

Upon institution of the suit, summons were duly

¶51

issued to the defendants, who remained absent and were accordingly placed ex parte.

¶52

Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶53

I have perused the findings of the trial Court as well as the findings of the first appellate Court and material on record and considered the synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

¶54

After hearing arguments, the suit of the plaintiff

¶55

was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that RTC entry as on the date was not in the name of plaintiff, but the source of title and the grant certificate issued in the year 1978 was not taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff had challenged the order of the trial Court before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.69/2016.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40868 RSA No. 2288 of 2018

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

However, the first appellate Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence and consider Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 and also application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, along with the documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶59

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed

¶60

and the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court for fresh consideration.

¶61

The first appellate Court shall re-appreciate the evidence and consider application filed U/O.XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and decide the same. It is further directed that the first appellate Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶63

BNV/GSR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri. C. Jayachandra v. Sri. Narasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. Jayachandra v. Sri. Narasappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundara Gowda Vs K v Ganapayya

Nagarajagowda Vs Sharadamma

Sri. G D Manjunath Vs Sri. G D Ramesh

Sri Harshith Vs Sri Sujith Kumar Alva

Sri Vishwanatha P Vs Sri Sujith Kumar Alva

Sri Shanthalingaswamy Vs Smt. Shivamma