Channappa, Vs Smt. Manjula

SMT. MANJULA, W/O ANNAPPA HOSALLERA D/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MADIKE NICHAPURA VILLAGE UCHANGI DURGA POST HARAPANAHALLI TALUK VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583125.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O MAHESHWARAPPA D/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577589.

¶21

SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER R/O SHAMANOOR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577004.

¶22

SMT. MANJAMMA W/O PARASAPPA D/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AT AND POST HALEKUNDAWADA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577566.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2025, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.02.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2021 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.244/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

¶33

and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

The counsel appearing to the appellants would submits that an application is filed along with the main appeal in R.A.No.66/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal, not considered the very same application and proceeded to pass an order without consideration of additional evidence documents and on that ground itself matter requires to be set-aside and the same has to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider the same afresh.

¶35

The counsel would vehemently contend that the finding of the Trial Court is that father passed away prior to the year 1991. But, the fact is that he died in the year 1993 and death certificate is also produced before the Appellate Court along with the application under Order 41

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Rule 27 of CPC. The counsel would submits that there was a registered partition between the father and sons in the year 1992 in terms of Ex.D.12.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶41

respondents submits that very document of Ex.D.12 is created and original is not placed before the Court. Apart from that there is an admission on the part of the witnesses that father died even prior to the 1991 and those made such admissions. But, with regard to the nonconsideration of the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the counsel not disputes the fact that First Appellate Court not considered the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, the counsel for appellants placed on record certified copy of the order sheet in R.A.No.66/2021 before the Court. On perusal of the order sheet, on the very first day of the filing of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2021 is filed under Order 41

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court, the order sheet of Regular Appeal and this Court has secured the records. Having perused the order sheet, it is very clear that an application is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The Appellate Court did not frame any point for consideration at the time of disposal of Regular Appeal and whether the additional documents which have been produced before the Appellate Court are necessary or not in order to decide the germane issues involved between the parties no consideration. The Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the same and the same is not done and hence, the very judgment and decree of the Appellate Court requires to be set-aside and matter needs to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider I.A filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and decide the appeal on merits considering all other grounds which have been urged in the Appellate Court. Hence, the Order impugned requires to be set-aside and matter to be remitted back.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶50

the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The second appeal is allowed .

¶53

ii) The Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.66/2021 is set-aside and matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court to decide the same in view of the observations made above. The suit is of the year 2015 and hence, the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within six months from 19.12.2025.

¶54

iii) The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 19.12.2025 without expecting any notice.

¶55

iv) Both the parties and respective counsels are directed to assist the First Appellate Court in disposal of the case within the time stipulated.

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:48257 RSA No. 590 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

v) The Registry is directed to send the records forthwith to Appellate Court to enable the First Appellate Court to take up the matter without fail on 19.12.2025.

¶60

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶61

RHS

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Channappa, v. Smt. Manjula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channappa, v. Smt. Manjula

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

Sanna Kariyappa Vs Kariyappa Kottehall

Sri Shivanna Shetty Vs Sri Sunder Shetty

Sri.M.L.Shivakumar Vs Smt.Lalithamma

Sri M D Chandrashekhar Vs Sri Ramesha

Sri T R Gurushekaraiah Vs Health and Family Welfare Dept Employees House Building Co. Operative Society

Sri M N Nagaraju Vs Smt Nagarathnamma