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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
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£ÉÃ
¥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."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14341
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
