[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
G N Narasappa vs Ramachandrappa on 18 March, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
RSA No. 1283 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1283 OF 2022 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
G N NARASAPPA
S/O GADDAM NAVARSIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT GULUR ROAD
VALMIKINAGAR, BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561207
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RAMACHANDRAPPA
Digitally signed S/O NARSIMHAPPA
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/AT JILAKARPALLI VILLAGE
COURT OF KASABA HOBLI
KARNATAKA BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR-561207
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAVEEN J N, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2022
PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND
ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
RSA No. 1283 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard this matter earlier in part when the application
was listed for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the
appeal and the said application was allowed. In the
meanwhile, the parties have come before this Court
stating that they are going to settle the matter.
Accordingly, time was granted for settlement. Today, the
counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no
element of settlement. But the counsel for the appellant
has brought the DD before the Court and the same is not
accepted and the counsels submit that the matter may be
considered on merits.
2. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
appellant and also the counsel appearing for respondent, it
is noticed by this Court that when the regular appeal was
filed before the First Appellate Court, an application was
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with list of
documents running 17 in numbers. The counsel for the
appellant also submits that, apart from these documents
even when the matter was taken up before this Court in
writ petition as well as in the writ appeal as against the
order of the Deputy Commissioner, both the writ petition
as well as the writ appeal were also dismissed subject to
the outcome of the R.A.No.49/2016. The counsel for the
appellant would submit that those two documents of writ
petition order and the writ appeal order also not placed
before the First Appellate Court and seeks permission of
this Court to file necessary application before the First
Appellate Court to produce those documents.
3. Having considered the order passed by the First
Appellate Court with regard to the application filed in
I.A.No.3 is concerned, it discloses that the First Appellate
Court in paragraphs 24 to 26, taken note of the
documents which have been produced along with the
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and so also the
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
objections filed by the respondent and comes to the
conclusion that the reason assigned by the appellant is
that by oversight, he could not produce those documents
and no other reasons have been assigned and also not
given any reasons under what circumstances, he was
prevented in producing those documents. The First
Appellate Court also an observation is made that Trial
Court also while dismissing the suit taken note that
brothers have not been made as parties to the
proceedings and comes to the conclusion that under the
circumstances, production of these documents will not in
any way helpful in determining the suit.
4. The counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the said reasoning assigned by First Appellate
Court is capricious since the First Appellate Court has not
considered the documents which require to be produced to
prove the title of the appellant since the appellant has
sought for the relief of declaration.
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
5. The counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that the respondent has produced ten documents
before the Trial Court and the Trial Court taken note of all
these documents and dismissed the suit on the ground
that original documents of grant are not produced. The
counsel would submits that apart from the documents
which have been produced before the Trial Court, are
going to produce additional documents in respect of the
grant order by filing necessary application.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties. When both the counsels submit that
additional documents which intend to produce are
necessary for consideration of the suit wherein prayer is
sought for declaration. It is settled law that the plaintiff
has to prove his own documents to get the relief of
declaration and not depend on the weakness of the
defendant. Apart from that, the First Appellate Court also
committed an error in passing an order that no reasons
are assigned for production of documents. But the
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
documents which have been produced are in respect of
proving of the title particularly, the documents in total 17
numbers are produced. When such documents are
produced before the First Appellate Court, the First
Appellate Court ought to have considered the same and
ought not to have dismissed the application only on the
ground of technicalities. Even if no sufficient reasons are
assigned, the Court ought to have directed the appellant
to file a better affidavit in support of the application since
the suit is for the relief of declaration which involves
declaration of rights of the parties. But the First Appellate
Court has not done the same and on technicality, the
application was dismissed. Hence, the matter requires
remand to the First Appellate Court directing to decide the
same whether those documents are necessary for deciding
the title of the appellant and so also the claim made by the
respondent. If respondent/defendant also produces any
documents, the same can also be considered by the First
Appellate Court before disposal of the regular appeal and
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
even appellant also intends to file the additional
documents, the same can also be permitted and consider
the additional documents of both the parties within the
scope of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Thus, the matter
requires to be remanded to the First Appellate Court to
consider the application and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law and also consider if brothers are
necessary parties to the proceedings and if any
applications are filed, consider the same in order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings.
7. In view of the discussions made about, I pass
the following:
ORDER.
The appeal is allowed.
Impugned judgment dated 06.04.2022
passed in R.A.No.49/2016 by the III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura is
set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC:15845
HC-KAR
The matter is remitted back to the First
Appellate Court to dispose of the same in view of
the observations made by this Court.
If the First Appellate Court comes to the
conclusion that documents are necessary for
deciding the case, even record the evidence and
then give a finding on the application as well as
on merits of the case instead of remanding the
same to the Trial Court.
The parties are directed to appear before
the First Appellate Court on 17.04.2026.
The First Appellate Court is directed to
dispose of the appeal within 6 months from
17.04.2026.
The respective parties and respective
counsels are also directed to assist the First
Appellate Court in disposal of the case in a time
bound period.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
