Karnataka High Court
Channappa vs Smt. Manjula on 21 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
RSA No. 590 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.590 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. CHANNAPPA
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
2. NARADA MUNI
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDENT OF KONDAJJI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
Digitally signed DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577589.
by DEVIKA M
...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
KARNATAKA
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MANJULA,
W/O ANNAPPA HOSALLERA
D/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O MADIKE NICHAPURA VILLAGE
UCHANGI DURGA POST
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583125.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
RSA No. 590 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SMT. PRAMEELAMMA
W/O MAHESHWARAPPA
D/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/O KONDAJJI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577589.
3. SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC: HOMEMAKER
R/O SHAMANOOR VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK
AND DISTRICT-577004.
4. SMT. MANJAMMA
W/O PARASAPPA
D/O HALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
AT AND POST HALEKUNDAWADA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577566.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.11.2025,
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 6.02.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2021 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA., DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
26.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.244/2015 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
RSA No. 590 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The counsel appearing to the appellants would
submits that an application is filed along with the main
appeal in R.A.No.66/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
The First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal, not
considered the very same application and proceeded to
pass an order without consideration of additional evidence
documents and on that ground itself matter requires to be
set-aside and the same has to be remitted back to the
First Appellate Court to consider the same afresh.
3. The counsel would vehemently contend that the
finding of the Trial Court is that father passed away prior
to the year 1991. But, the fact is that he died in the year
1993 and death certificate is also produced before the
Appellate Court along with the application under Order 41
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
HC-KAR
Rule 27 of CPC. The counsel would submits that there was
a registered partition between the father and sons in the
year 1992 in terms of Ex.D.12.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents submits that very document of Ex.D.12 is
created and original is not placed before the Court. Apart
from that there is an admission on the part of the
witnesses that father died even prior to the 1991 and
those made such admissions. But, with regard to the non-
consideration of the application filed under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC, the counsel not disputes the fact that First
Appellate Court not considered the application filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents,
the counsel for appellants placed on record certified copy
of the order sheet in R.A.No.66/2021 before the Court. On
perusal of the order sheet, on the very first day of the
filing of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2021 is filed under Order 41
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
HC-KAR
Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court, the order sheet of Regular Appeal and
this Court has secured the records. Having perused the
order sheet, it is very clear that an application is filed
under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The Appellate Court did
not frame any point for consideration at the time of
disposal of Regular Appeal and whether the additional
documents which have been produced before the Appellate
Court are necessary or not in order to decide the germane
issues involved between the parties no consideration. The
Appellate Court ought to have taken note of the same and
the same is not done and hence, the very judgment and
decree of the Appellate Court requires to be set-aside and
matter needs to be remitted back to the First Appellate
Court to consider I.A filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC
and decide the appeal on merits considering all other
grounds which have been urged in the Appellate Court.
Hence, the Order impugned requires to be set-aside and
matter to be remitted back.
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
HC-KAR
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The second appeal is allowed.
ii) The Judgment and decree dated 06.02.2024
passed by the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.66/2021 is set-aside and matter is
remitted back to the Appellate Court to decide
the same in view of the observations made
above. The suit is of the year 2015 and hence,
the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose
of the appeal within six months from
19.12.2025.
iii) The parties are directed to appear before the
First Appellate Court on 19.12.2025 without
expecting any notice.
iv) Both the parties and respective counsels are
directed to assist the First Appellate Court in
disposal of the case within the time stipulated.
NC: 2025:KHC:48257
HC-KAR
v) The Registry is directed to send the records
forthwith to Appellate Court to enable the First
Appellate Court to take up the matter without
fail on 19.12.2025.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
