Karnataka High Court
Holeyewwa W/O. Sangappa Jummannavar vs Basappa S/O. Jummanna Jummannavar on 27 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
RSA No. 5897 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5897 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. HOLEYAWWA
W/O. SANGAPPA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAJAGAL,
NOW AT HIREMAGI, TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587115.
2. SMT. RENAWWA
W/O. HANAMAPPA HOSUR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HIREMAGI,
TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587115.
YASHAVANT ...APPELLANTS
NARAYANKAR
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT R.SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.10.29 AND:
10:57:27 +0530
1. SRI. BASAPPA
S/O. JUMMANNA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAJAGAL, TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587112.
2. SRI. GANDAPPA
S/O. JUMMANNA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KAJAGAL, TQ. HUNGUND,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
RSA No. 5897 of 2013
HC-KAR
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587112.
3. SRI. HOLEYAPPA
S/O. JUMMNNA JUMMANNAVAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KAJAGAL, TQ. HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587112.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
THAT AFTER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS
OF THE CASE, THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2013 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE HUNGUND IN R.A.NO.1/2008 TO
THE EXTENT OF R.S.NO.288/1 SITUATE AT GANJIHAL VILLAGE
IN HUNGUND TO THE EXTENT OF R.S.NO.288/1 SITUATE AT
GANJIHAL VILLAGE IN HUNGUND TALUK, BY ALLOWING THIS
RSA AND BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
10.12.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.231/2000 BY THE LEARNED
CIVIL JUDGE JR. DN. HUNGUND, WITH COSTS TO PROMOTE THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
RSA No. 5897 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the respondents.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether the First Appellate Court could have proceeded to consider the issues which it felt that should have been framed by the Trial Court without affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence?"
3. It is a settled proposition of law that if the appellate Court comes to a conclusion that the issues framed by the Trial Court are not correct, then it has to frame such additional issues, and then it has to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any, and then proceed with the matter. If the Appellate Court holds that the matter needs to be remanded to the Trial Court for such evidence to be recorded and finding needs to be given by the Trial Court, it is at liberty to remand the matter under Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341 RSA No. 5897 of 2013 HC-KAR
4. A perusal of the records of the First Appellate Court would disclose that after hearing the parties, on merits of the appeal, it frames an issue in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the judgment and strangely the issues are the same, which were framed as points for consideration. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court proceeds and holds those issues in the affirmative and delivers its judgment. The factual background is that the plaintiffs, who are the respondents herein, had filed a suit with following prayer:
(10) ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ «£ÀAw CzÉ C¯Áè:-
(1) zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÉÄÊvÀ ¸ÀAUÀ¥Áà FvÀ£ÀÄ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.11.1999 gÀAzÀÄ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÁÝ£É J£À߯ÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀzÉà Rjâ PÁUÀzÀ CxÀªÁ zÁR¯Éà ¥ÀvÀæ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzsÀ£ÀPÁj EgÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ vÀgÁ¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
(2) zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÊvÀ ¸ÀAUÀ¥Àà FvÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸Á£ÁvɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ®PÀgÀÄ CAvÁ vÀgÁ¬Ä¹ ªÉÊPÀ°àvÀªÁV D¹Û PÀ§eÁ ªÀ»ªÁnUÉ ºÀgÀPÀvÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÁQâ ºÀÄPÀÄA DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
(3) ¸ÀzÀgÀ zÁªÁPÉÌ vÀUÀÄ°zÀ RZÀÄð ªÀAiÉÆÃUÀåzÁzÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjAzÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ PÉÆr¸À®Ä ºÀÄPÀÄA DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
F ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ºÀÄPÀÄA£ÁªÀiÁ DUÀ¨ÉÃPÀAvÁ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ «£ÀAw Cfð."
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341 RSA No. 5897 of 2013 HC-KAR
5. The said prayer was made on the contention that the alleged sale deed in respect of Survey No.288/1 measuring 4 acres was illegal since the executant of the said deed i.e., Sangappa was in unconscious mind for about 6 to 8 months prior to his death due to ill-health and taking disadvantage of the said fact, the defendants had taken him to the Sub-Registrar Office and had got a concocted deed without consideration. Therefore, an issue in respect of the said act of the defendants was essential. However, the Trial Court had not framed any such issue in the matter.
6. Secondly, a question of jurisdiction was also raised by the defendants and though the said issue did not require any evidence to be recorded, could be and was decided by the First Appellate Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants points out that when an issue on fact had been raised by the First Appellate Court, it was incumbent upon it either to afford an opportunity to the parties to adduce any evidence or it should have remanded the matter under Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned judgment in R.A.No.1/2008 arising out of the judgment and decree in -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341 RSA No. 5897 of 2013 HC-KAR O.S.No.231/2000 is not sustainable in law. The First Appellate Court in paragraph 26 of its judgment observes as follows:
"First of all it is evident that lower court has not framed proper issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Plaintiffs have approached the lower court for declaration that alleged sale deed in respect of Sy.no.288/1 measuring 04 acres of Ganjihal village is illegal and not binding on them on the ground that deceased Sangappa was in unconscious mind for about 6 to 8 months prior to his death due to ill health, taking disadvantage of the said fact defendants took him in a jeep and got concocted the sale deed without consideration. Said fact is specifically denied by defendant no.2 by name Gundappa Jungannavar, further he contended that plaintiffs never residing with deceased Sangappa, he has sold the said property to him for valid consideration of Rs.62,000/- for his domestic difficulties and for treatment, since he has obtained loan from him, in presence of witnesses before the Sub-registrar, Hungund. Considering the above said facts pleaded by both parties, lower court ought to have frame issue in respect of above said assertions and denials of plaintiffs and defendant no.2 that, "Whether plaintiffs prove that alleged sale deed dt. 18.11.1999 in respect of Sy.no.288/1 measuring 04 acres of Ganjihal village executed by deceased -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341 RSA No. 5897 of 2013 HC-KAR Sangappa in favour of defendant no.2 is illegal and not binding on them?"
(emphasis supplied)
7. It is evident that after framing of such fresh issue, it could not have proceeded to determine the said issue unless the parties to the lis submit before it that the evidence is sufficient and the Court can go ahead with determination on the said issue. No such submission is noted in the records of the First Appellate Court. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment in R.A.No.1/2008 is not sustainable and therefore, the matter has to be remanded to the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having ample jurisdiction to record any additional evidence, if required, under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC may provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce any evidence and then consider the additional issues framed by it. The provisions of Order XLI Rule 25 of CPC are clear in this regard and therefore, the following:
ORDER
(i) The judgment and decree dated 30.09.2013 in R.A.No.1/2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund is hereby set aside.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341 RSA No. 5897 of 2013 HC-KAR
(ii) The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court, which shall restore R.A.No.1/2008 on its file and provide an opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, on the issues framed in paragraph 27 and 28 of the impugned judgment and thereafter it shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(iv) Both the parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 24.11.2025.
(v) Registry to send back the Trial Court Records and the First Appellate Court Records to the First Appellate Court expeditiously.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17