Karnataka High Court
Chennabasappa Sannabangarappa ... vs Nalini D/O Chennabasappa Shettalli on 17 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
RSA No. 100730 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100730 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
CHENNABASAPPA SANNABANGARAPPA SHETTALLI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1. GANGADHAR CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. GURUBHAVANA, MARKET ROAD,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
2. MISS LALITA
D/O. CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GURUBHAVANA, MARKET ROAD,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 3. VINAYAK CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT R/O. GURUBHAVANA, MARKET ROAD,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.11.19 TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
11:50:09 +0530
4. SMT. KAVITA W/O. MANJUNATH N,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MUDDATANURU, TQ. SHIRAGUPPA,
DIST. BALLARI-583121.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SAURABH SONDUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NALINI D/O. CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
RSA No. 100730 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GADALLI CROSS,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
2. DIVYABHARATI
D/O. CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. GADALLI CROSS,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
3. RAJASHEKHAR CHENNABASAPPA SHETTALLI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AUTO DRIVER,
R/O. TSS ROAD,
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARAKANNADA-581401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.P. HEDGE, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. VIJAY MALALI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 01.08.2025 PASSED BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT, KARWAR (SITTING AT SIRSI) AT
UTTARAKANNADA, IN RA NO.30/20112. CONSEQUENTLY, SET
ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.06.2011 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIRSI IN OS NO.124/2007 AND
DISMISS THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
RSA No. 100730 of 2025
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 considered the
three interim applications filed by the appellant before it under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce several
documents?"
3. The factual background necessary for this order is
that Channabassappa is the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs claim
that they are the daughters of Channabassappa born to his first
wife-Nagaveni. The defendant No.1-Channabasappa contends
that his only wife is one Shanta and Nagaveni is not related to
him. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs
holding that they are the children born to Nagaveni through the
defendant No.1. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed in
R.A.No.30/2011. By the impugned judgment, the appeal came to
be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
HC-KAR
4. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1 died during
the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court and
the appellant No.1(A) to 1(D) came on record saying that they
are the children born to one Shanta, who was stated to be the
only wife of the defendant No.1.
5. The appellants had filed three applications under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking to produce certain documents,
which would show that the wife of Channabasappa was Shanta
only. These applications filed by the appellants were not
considered by the First Appellate Court while dealing with
R.A.No.30/2011.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court
would clearly indicate that no such application was considered by
it. The certified copy of the application filed under Order XLI Rule
27 of CPC is produced and it is a cardinal principle of law that
any application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has to be
considered along with the main appeal. Obviously, the judgment
of the First Appellate Court does not show that such applications
filed were considered by it.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
HC-KAR
7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the applications should have been
considered by the First Appellate Court, but he opposes the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on the
ground that those applications do not have any bearing on the
merits of the case.
8. I am unable to accept this argument for the simple
reason that when the matter relates to the relationship of the
parties with the defendant No.1-Channabasappa, it cannot be
said that those applications had no relevance. If at all the said
applications were considered by the First Appellate Court,
definitely whether those documents were relevant for the just
decision in the matter or not could have been considered.
Moreover, the question whether the appellants could file such an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC and whether it comes
within the four corners of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is also not
considered by the First Appellate Court.
9. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded to the
First Appellate Court with a direction to the First Appellate Court
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15709
HC-KAR
to consider the applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC
on merits along with the appeal and then render its judgment in
accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
anything on the merits of the case and the judgment of the First
Appellate Court.
11. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration
and are disposed of.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
