[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
H.C.Rajashekara vs Lakshmi Devamma on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1508 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
H.C. RAJASHEKARA
DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. DHAKSHAYANI
W/O LATE H.C. RAJASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. H.R.TEJESH KUMAR
S/O LATE H.C. RAJASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. H.R. MANOJ
S/O LATE H.C.RAJASHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
HIG-19, 18TH CROSS,
Digitally signed by KUVEMPUNAGAR,
CHAYA S A HASSAN - 573 201.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SHRIKARA P.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAKSHMI DEVAMMA
DEAD, BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.
2. H.V. VASUDEVAMURTHY
S/O LATE H.M. VENKATASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/OF OPP. SRI. RAMA MANDIR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
DRIVER IN KSRTC,
BEHIND CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET,
HASSAN - 573 201.
2. PANDURANGASWAMY
S/O LATE H.M. VENKATASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O OPP, SRI. RAMA MANDIR
CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET,
HASSAN - 573 201.
4. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE H.M.VENKATASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O J.K. NILAYA,
BEHIND SANTHEPETE SCHOOL,
HUNSINKERE EXTENSION,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
V/O DATED 02.09.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE LRS OF DEAD R1)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17TH MARCH, 2016 PASSED IN
REGULAR APPEAL NO.255 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN,
DISMISSING, THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31ST JULY, 2009 PASSED IN ORIGINAL
SUIT NO.104 OF 2003 ON THE FILE THE ADDLITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN), HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs challenging the
judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2016 passed in Regular
Appeal No.255 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Hassan (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the
judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2009 passed in Original
Suit No.104 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Hassan (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial
Court'), wherein the suit of plaintiffs filed for relief of declaration
and permanent injunction came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are
that the plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of declaration and
permanent injunction against the defendants based on the
registered Sale Deeds dated 17th June, 1968 (Exhibit P1) and
20th August, 1983 (Exhibit P2). It is the case of plaintiffs that
the defendants were interfering with the suit schedule property
as the identity of the property itself is question and therefore,
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
plaintiffs filed the instant suit, seeking declaration with
consequential relief of permanent injunction.
4. After service of summons, defendants entered
appearance and fled detailed written statement, denying the
averments made in the plaint.
5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court
framed issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined
one witness as PW1 and got marked 8 documents as Exhibits P1
to P8. On the other hand, defendants examined one witness as
DW1 and no documentary evidence is adduced.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2009,
dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs
preferred Regular Appeal No.255 of 2009 before the First Appeal
Court. The First Appeal Court, after re-appreciating the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2016,
dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appellants
filed the present appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
8. This Court, by order dated 27th March, 2026,
admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial
question of law:
"Whether the First Appellate Court committed an
error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs without considering the application filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure?"
9. Heard Sri. Shrikara P.K., learned counsel appearing
for appellants and Sri. K. Ravishankar, learned counsel
appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
10. Sri. Shrikara P.K., learned counsel appearing for
appellants invited the attention of the Court to Paragraph 27 of
the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and
submitted that the appellants herein have filed application under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with six
documents to establish the case as to the title of suit schedule
property. Learned counsel further submits that, though the
appellant/plaintiffs have filed six documents to adduce additional
evidence, however, the First Appellate Court misconstrued the
same and taken view as two photographs. Accordingly, he
sought for interference of this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
11. Per contra, Sri. K. Ravishankar, learned counsel
appearing for respondents sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. He
submits that, both the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion
that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for granting relief of
declaration. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of appeal.
12. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the
paragraph 27 of the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate, wherein, it is observed that the appellant/plaintiffs
have filed application along with two photographs. However, on
perusal of the original records would indicate that the appellants
herein have filed the said application on 30th November, 2010
before the First Appellate Court along with six documents. On
perusal of the documents, there are no photographs instead four
revenue documents and two registered Sale Deeds are
forthcoming.
13. Therefore, following the law declared by this Court in
the case of SHANTHAVEERAPPA vs. K.N.
JANARDHANACHARI reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1127 and law
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF
INDIA vs. IBRAHIM UDDIN AND ANOTHER reported in
(2012) 8 SC 148, I am of the view that, it is the duty of the
Appellate Court to give finding on the application filed under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the
relevant documents filed by the appellants would enure to the
benefit of appellants for the purpose of adjudicating the matter
on merits. In that view of the matter, since, the First Appellate
Court had enumerated at paragraph 27 of the judgment and
decree that the appellants have filed two photographs though
the same are not produced by the appellants, I find force in the
submission made by learned counsel appearing for appellants.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, it is a fit
case to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court for
reconsideration of appeal afresh along with documents produced
by the appellants in the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Regular Second Appeal allowed;
(ii) Judgment and decree dated 17th March, 2016
passed in Regular Appeal No.255 of 2009 on
the file of the V Additional District and Sessions
NC: 2026:KHC:19516
RSA NO.1508 OF 2016
HC-KAR
Judge, Hassan is hereby set-aside; and the
matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court
to reconsider the appeal on merits afresh after
affording opportunity of hearing to all the
parties in the light of observation made above;
(iii) It is needless to state that the First Appellate
Court shall consider the application filed by the
appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure on merits and pass orders;
(iv) Since, the parties are represented through their
learned counsels, in order to avoid further delay
in the matter, parties are directed to appear
before the First Appellate Court on 24th April,
2026 at 11.00 am. without waiting for any
notice.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 61
