Karnataka High Court
Chikkanna vs Surappa @ Chandrappa on 16 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.1 OF 2019 (RO)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKANNA
AGE: 65 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH
2. RANGANNA
AGE: 64 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDARANGIAAH @ DODDAIAH
DEAD BY LRS
2(A) MAHALAKSHMI
AGE: 59 YEARS
Digitally signed W/O LATE RANGANNA
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH 2(B) YOGEESH
COURT OF S/O LATE RANGANNA
KARNATAKA AGE: 36 YEARS
2(C) RAVIKIRAN
S/O LATE RANGANNA
AGE: 34 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O SIRA GATE
VENKATESHAPURA - 572 102
TUMAKURU
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHERIFF, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
1. BHEEMAKKA,
W/O. LATE. SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA,
AGE: 69 YEARS
RANGANATH
DEAD BY LRS,
2. MEENAKSHAMMA,
AGE: 47 YEARS
W/O LATE C RANGANATH
3. RAVIKIRAN R
S/O LATE C RANGANATH
AGE: 29 YEARS
4. NARAYAN S
S/O LATE SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE
R/O VENKATESHAPPA,
SIRA GATE - 572102
TUMKURU TOWN
THAMMAIAH
S/O LATE. DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
5. CHIKKAHANUMAKKA,
AGE: 71 YEARS,
W/O LATE THAMMAIAH,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
6. YOGISH
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH,
AGE: 47 YEARS
7. DAKSHAYANAMMA
D/O LATE THAMMAIAH,
AGE: 51 YEARS
8. YASHODHAMMA
D/O LATE THAMMAIAH,
AGE: 49 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE
R/O KUNDUR,
DEVARAYAPATNA,
BELAGUMBA POST,
TUMKURU - 572 101
BANADA RANGAPPA
S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
9. NIRMALA,
AGE: 51 YEARS,
W/O SANJEEVAIAH,
C/O. HANUMANTHAPPAIAH,
DURGADAHALLI,
URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST
10. KAMALAMMA
W/O. SREENIVASAIAH,
AGE: 53 YEARS
D/O. BANDARANGAPPA,
R/O. GURUVINIAHANA PALYA,
SIRA GATE -572102
TUMAKURU TOWN
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
R. RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O RANGAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
11. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE ARUVANNA,
AGE: 77 YEARS,
R/O. SIRA GATE -572102,
TUMAKURU
12. RAMANAGOWDA
S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGE: 69 YEARS
R/O. VENKATESHPURA,
TUMAKURU -572101
13. SUMITHRAMMA
W/O LINGAPPA,
AGE: 67 YEARS
R/O. BADVANAHALLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DIST-572132
14. R. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH
AGE: 68 YEARS
SUB INSPECTOR
MADHUGIRI - 572 132
TUMAKURU DIST
15. CHELUVARAJAMMA
W/O SADASHIVAIHA,
AGE: 63 YEARS
R/O. I D HALLI,
BESIDE BASAVANAGUDI,
MADHUGIRI - 572 132,
TUMKUR DIST
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
16. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE. RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGE: 61 YEARS
BY THE SIDE OF GARDEN,
TUMAKURU - 572 101
17. SUMANGALAMMA
W/O SANJEEVAPPA,
AGE: 59 YEARS
R/O. NO.58, 1ST MAIN ROAD
RAJAMAHAL GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 010
18. VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O HARIDAS,
DODDAKADATATHUR
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O. MALUR - 563 130
KOLAR DIST
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 TO R4, R9 & R10;
SRI R V JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8;
SMT. SOWMYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R14 & R16;
NOTICE TO R5, R11, R12, R15, R17 & R18
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF
THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.12.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.400/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
MSA No. 1 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 4, 9 and 10 and also the learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8.
2. This appeal is filed against the order of remand
passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.400/2009.
The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds
which have been urged in the appeal memo comes to the
conclusion that the Trial Court erred in holding the
partition as per the settlement deed effected by the father
Doddarangaiah as per the document marked at Ex.D3
dated 20.05.1965 as legal and binding on the parties to
the suit and also answered the Point No.2 as affirmative
holding that the Trial Court erred in partly dismissing the
suit and partly decreeing the suit and hence, the judgment
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
HC-KAR
and decree of the Trial Court requires interference and
answered Point No.4 as affirmative holding that the
appellant has made out a grounds to allow an application
for impleading respondent No.6 and in respect of Point
No.5 that what shares each of the parties to the suit are
entitled to and in which of the suit properties, the First
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that unless the
daughters are made as parties to the suit, the matter
requires to be remitted back to the Trial Court with a
direction to implead all the daughters/ deceased
daughter's heirs of the propositous and to consider the
entitlement of shares of each of the parties to the suit in
all the suit schedule properties, in the light of observations
made while answering the Point Nos.4 and 5 and then to
dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law by
providing an opportunity of impleadment to the parties,
filing of written statement to the newly impleaded
defendants and to lead evidence if any, at the instance of
the newly impleaded defendants and all these proceedings
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
HC-KAR
to be completed within a further period of six months from
the date of receipt of this order.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court while
reminding the matter ought not to have touched upon the
issue of settlement deed is concerned. The counsel
appearing to the respective respondents also vehemently
contended that when the daughters have not been made
as parties and when the application is also allowed i.e.,
I.A.No.8 and directed to implead the legal heirs of
deceased daughter, they also to be made as party and
specific direction was given. The counsel would
vehemently contend that instead of remanding the matter
it was only to decide the share and also the issue of
entitlement, hence, the First Appellate Court ought not to
have remanded the same. Hence, this Court is of the
opinion that there is a force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants also would vehemently contend that matter
ought to have been dealt by the First Appellate Court itself
and only the issue of for non-inclusion of the daughters is
before the First Appellate Court and regarding finding of
the Trial Court in granting the relief partly, ought to have
been considered and hence, answering of the Point Nos.1
to 3 by the First Appellate Court required to be set aside
and the matter has to be considered afresh by the First
Appellate Court itself since, the suit is of the year 1989
and almost 36 years has been elapsed and even appeal is
also of the year 2009 and almost 16 years has been
elapsed. Hence, instead of remanding the same to the
Trial Court taking note of the fact that the suit of the year
1989 and appeal is of the year 2009, First Appellate Court
would have been exercised the appellate powers by
considering the said issue giving an opportunity to the
parties in the very same Court and not had the conscious
about the same while remanding the matter.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
HC-KAR
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order
of remand passed by the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.400/2009 is set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the First Appellate Court to
decide the issue involved between the parties
afresh in view of the observations made by this
court.
The parties are directed to appear before
the First Appellate Court on 11.08.2025 without
expecting any notice. The First Appellate Court
already directed to dispose of the matter within
six months and the same is not altered and
directed to dispose of the same within six
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26470
HC-KAR
months from 11.08.2025 by the First Appellate
Court itself.
The First Appellate Court while considering
the matter on merits shall not be influenced by
the earlier observation made in the appeal and
consider the matter afresh.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
