Karnataka High Court
Sri Kenchappa @ Muniyappa vs Abdul Aleem on 7 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
MSA No. 47 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.47 OF 2023 (RO)
BETWEEN:
SRI KENCHAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL HEIRS,
ARASAPPA SINCE DECEASED,
1. SMT. BHARDRAMMA,
W/O ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
RAJRAJESHWARI CHOULTRY,
Digitally signed BENGALURU DISTRICT 562115
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI NAGARAJU
KARNATAKA S/O ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT RAJARAJESHWARI KALYANA
MANTAPA, OPP I B OFFICE,
BANNURGATTA ROAD,
ANEKAL TOWN,
BENGALURU 562106
3. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
MSA No. 47 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. SRI KUMAR
S/O ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. SRI ASHWATH
S/O ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3 to 5 are R/AT SIDIHOSKOTE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT 562115
6. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
D/O KENCHAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA
W/O SAMPANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SMT RAMAKKA,
DIED DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL
7. SRI C MANJUNATH
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
8. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O KENCHAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.6 TO 8 ARE
R/AT SIDIHOSKOTE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT 562115
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
MSA No. 47 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. ABDUL ALEEM
S/O ABDUL RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO 11, WELLINGTON STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU 560025
2. SRI K C CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU
S/O LATE V S CHAGAMA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. SR I K C BALAKRISHNA RAJU
S/O LATE CHAGAMA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BOTH RESPONDENT No.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT No.933, 2ND MAIN
DIVANRAPALYA,
BENGALURU 560001
3. SRI K C LAKSHMI
D/O V S CHAGAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO 1152, 14TH MAIN,
2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALIKSHMA PURAM,
BENGALURU 54
5. SRI M UJJINAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT INDLAVADI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT 562115
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
MSA No. 47 of 2023
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ASHAL K, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINIVASAN V, ADVOCATE)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.10.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.5070/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. This matter was heard on the previous occasion
i.e., on 30.06.2025 and when the submission was made by
the respondents' counsel that after the matter was
remanded, additional issues were framed by the Trial
Court and led the evidence. In view of the said
submission, this Court directed the counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
HC-KAR
appellants to make submission in this regard. Today, the
counsel for the appellants submits that after the remand,
issues were framed and posted for further chief of the
appellants/plaintiffs.
3. The counsel submits that the First Appellate
Court committed an error in making an observation that
no opportunity was given to the respondents/defendants
before the Trial Court. In his arguments, he has produced
certified copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court to show
that PW1 was examined on 23.09.2011 and documents at
Ex.P1 to P37 were got marked and cross-examination was
deferred and posted the matter for cross-examination on
13.10.2011. The record is evident that even though three
witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW3, none of
the witnesses have been cross-examined and the matter
was disposed of in the year 2017 that is after six years of
evidence of PW1.
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
HC-KAR
4. The records discloses that the in support of the
evidence of PW2 and PW3, affidavits were filed on
16.12.2016 and PW2 and PW3 were examined on the very
same day and posted the matter for cross-examination of
PW2 and PW3 on 17.01.2017. On 17.01.2017, PW2 and
PW3 were present before the Court and none appears on
behalf or the defendants and hence, cross-examination of
PW2 and PW3 was taken as nil and posted the matter for
defendants' evidence on 01.02.2017. On 01.02.2017,
there was no representation and hence, on the very same
day, evidence of defendants was taken as nil and posted
the matter for arguments on 13.02.2017 and again
adjourned the matter till 21.02.2017. On 21.02.2017,
heard the arguments of both the sides and posted for
judgment.
5. Having taken note of the material on record it
discloses that though PW1 was examined in 2011 and
thereafter applications were filed before the Court and
ultimately PW2 and PW3 were examined and date was
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
HC-KAR
given for cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 and they
have not been cross-examined and hence, posted the case
for defendants' evidence and when the matter was posted
for defendants' evidence, on the very same day, taken as
no evidence and posted the matter for arguments and
thereafter for judgment. Having taken note of the said
fact into consideration, I do not find any error committed
by the First Appellate in observing that no opportunity was
given and only one day was given to lead the evidence and
for cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 also only one date
was given and thereafter taken as no cross-examination.
When such being the case, I do not find any grounds to
set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter
within six months from 10.07.2025.
NC: 2025:KHC:24480
HC-KAR
The counsel for the defendants also directed to assist
the Trial Court in disposal of the same within the
stipulated time without showing the earlier attitude since
PW1 was examined in the year 2011 and did not cross-
examine PW1 and directed not to seek any adjournment
unless for any genuine reason.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
