Sri Siddaramaswamy Vs Smt. Rathna @ Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Siddaramaswamy Vs Smt. Rathna @ Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed-in-part; the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2025 of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru are modified, and the appellant/Defendant No.5 is permitted to contest the matter on remand in the circumstances narrated in the judgment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in permitting only defendants No.2 and 3 to contest the matter after the remand?

Court's answer

On the approach taken in the impugned remand decree, Defendant No.5 was impliedly not permitted to contest the matter, since post-remand reconsideration was confined to the defence of Defendants 2 and 3.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found merit in Defendant No.5's submission that he ought also to be permitted to contest if Defendants 2 and 3 take a stand contrary to his interest.

Key takeaways

If Defendants 2 and 3 take any stand prejudicial to the interest of Defendant No.5, or the Plaintiff takes any such stand while cross-examining Defendants 2 and 3, then Defendant No.5 shall also be permitted to contest the matter as advised in law.ratio¶54
Accordingly, the impugned First Appellate Court judgment and decree dated 23.01.2025 are modified partly, relaxing the restriction on who may contest after remand.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second appeal under S.100 CPC against a First Appellate Court decree (RA.No.119/2024, Family Court, Tumakuru, 23.01.2025) that had remanded OS.No.13/2016 to the Trial Court while permitting only Defendants 2 and 3 — who had been ex parte when the suit was partly decreed on 27.03.2019 — to contest after remand, thereby implying that Defendant No.5, who had contested the suit, could not. On the substantial question whether the First Appellate Court was justified in confining post-remand participation to Defendants 2 and 3, the High Court (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J) held it was not wholly justified: the decree was modified partly so that Defendant No.5 shall also be permitted to contest whenever Defendants 2 and 3, or the Plaintiff while cross-examining them, take any stand prejudicial to Defendant No.5's interest. Appeal allowed-in-part; no monetary relief involved.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2026 (RO)

BETWEEN:

SRI SIDDARAMASWAMY S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT IDAKANAHALLI- 572 222 NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. V.B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. RATHNA @ RATHNAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJU K, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. NO.33, SRI GANDAKAVERI LAYOUT, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 024.

SRI. I.G. SIDDARAJU, S/O. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. NO.11, 47^TH BLOCK, SYNDICATE BANK OFFICERS QUARTERS, OPP. BMTC BUS STATION, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

SMT. SUMANGALA, W/O. LATE BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT YELACHIHALLI, KADABA HOBLI - 572 219 GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT

SMT. SUJATHA, W/O. LINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A. HONNUDIKE-572 122 HONNUDIKE, GULUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 - ABSENT, VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT

VIDE ORDER DATED 20.08.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.01.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.119/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.13/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI.

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and there is no representation on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3/plaintiff though served is not represented by any advocate.

This appeal is filed against the decree remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. While remanding the matter, the Appellate Court has permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to contest the matter, as they were placed ex- parte and imposed certain conditions and permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to lead evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff.

Defendant No.5 is before this Court.

The learned counsel appearing for defendant

No.5/appellant would submit that while remanding the matter, the condition could not have been imposed in such

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

a way which could restrict the right of defendant No.5 to contest the matter, if any adverse stand is taken by defendants No.2 and 3 in the written statement. The written statement filed by defendants No.2 and 3 is not placed before this Court. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the remand should have been an open remand where defendant No.5 should also be permitted to contest the matter.

The Court has considered the contentions raised

at the Bar and perused the records.

The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration:

"Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in permitting only defendants No.2 and 3 to contest the matter after the remand? "

The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019

passed by the Trial Court would reveal that defendants No.2 and 3 remained ex- parte before the Trial Court.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

However, defendant No.5 had contested the matter. Suit was partly decreed. As against the judgment and decree, defendants No.2 and 3 filed an appeal and on their appeal, the matter was remanded as they had remained ex- parte before the Trial Court and they had not contested the matter. Hence, while remanding the matter, the Court restricted the reconsideration of the case only pursuant to the defence to be taken by defendants No.2 and 3. Hence, defendant No.5 impliedly is not permitted to contest the matter.

Since the learned counsel for defendant No.5/appellant would submit that in case defendants No.2 and 3 take a stand which is contrary to the interest of defendant No.5, then the defendant No.5 should be permitted to contest the matter against the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 as well. The Court finds merits in the said submission.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

Under the circumstances, the impugned

judgment and decree are modified partly. In case, defendants No.2 and 3 take any stand prejudicial to the interest of defendant No.5 or in case the plaintiff takes any stand while cross-examining defendants No.2 and 3 prejudicial to the interest of defendant No.5, then defendant No.5 should also be permitted to contest the matter as advised in law.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

ii. The Judgment and decree dated

23.01.2025 on the file of I Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru are modified.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6789 MSA No. 8 of 2026

HC-KAR

iii. The appellant/defendant No.5 is

permitted to contest the matter in the

circumstances narrated above.

SD/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26