Ix) 3. ANIAPARAVANDA ERAPPA @ DINU S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT IBNIVALAVADI VILLAGE MADIKERI THALUK -- 571 201 KODAGU DISTRCIT 4. ANJAPARAVANDA BALAKRISHN S/0 LATE JDYARRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS A R/AT IBNIVALAVADI VILLAGEZTV ' MADIKERI THALUK ~57} 201 KODAGU DISTRCIT '' 5. ANJARARAVANDRA.GANE»SLL}. S/O LATE JDYARRA j T A AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT IBNI\/ALAVA'D.I.,VILL'AGE ; MADIKERI-TH-ALU§K-57_1.: 291-.3--.L_ * KoDAGD_DI;S*r_RG1T 6. AN}A¥3ARAVAE*.slD'A 1§H1MMAIA;D_H._ S/O LATEADEvA:1AHi:;;, Y. AGED ABOUT 83:Y_EA«RS*._"'~.__ L V R/AT 1BN1v'ALA\/AD':AVILLAAGE '_ MADIKERI THALUK --~=.5--7:"~Y2G1R' KODAGU DISTRVCIVT; A 7._Y«"D-LLAS.DEvA1jAL, DDDDD S/«Q LATE,'SQr/!.AIAH AGED AaO'U_T» 54. YEARS 'R/AT 1GBmfv.ALAf'v.AD1 VILLAGE ~ MADIKERI THALUK - 571 201 A _ KO|I§'AGL.!__"E')IF3"T"RCIT A A SATHA'MI9./EAIAH 'CS,/O 'LATE SOMAIAH M AGEDABDUT 48 YEARS " R/AT IBNIVALAVADI VILLAGE MADIKERI THALUK -- 571 201 KODAGU DISTRCIT A A//\:>gZ/ 9. SMT A S THANGAMMA W/O A.A.GOPAi_A AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MARAGODU VILLAGE MADIKERI THALUK -- 571 201 KODAGU DISTRCIT 10. SMT A S KUSUMA W/O LATE MADEYANDA KUSHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MEKERI VILALGE MADIKERI THALUK ~-- 571 201 KODAGU DISTRCIT 11. ANJAPARAVANDA KUSHALAPRA S/O LATE SUBBAPPA , " AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS' L A R/AT IBNIVALAVADI VILLAGE» MADIKERI THALUK -- 571_._2€11_ KODAGU DISTRc1T~..__ ' 5- ' 12. ANJAPARAVANDRA PALAN,GAPP,A_:"- AGED AB'OUIZ'64 YEARS' R;/AT IAEA3Al\i'A1.'1/A_L:AVA«!§I*Y .\zI:,LAG E MA_DIK_ERI_ THfALUK_ 5:1 201 KODAGU DIST-R;c1T * A 13. ;SMT P G GANGAMMA R S GANAPATHY _ AGED"AE5OUT 56 YEARS A. . Rf.A"'F KYADANOOR VILLAGE 1- 'VI-RAJPETTHALUK ---- 571 301 KODASU DISTRCIT 14. SEVETHAMMA B A A W,/MC) BOPPANDA APPACHU ' '*-._AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS QR/AT NAGASHETTY HALLI, BANGALORE--56009-4 15. 16. 17. L'1.8'.f ~ P G MUTHAPPA S/O LATE P G PARVATHY 8: LATE P G GANAPATHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BADAGA VILLAGE MADIKERI THALUK - 571 201 KODAGU DISTRICT RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 15
ARE ACTING THROUGH AND
REP BY THEIR P A HOLDER,
A S KUSHALAPPA
S/O LATE A B SUBBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.*
R/AT IBNIVALAVADI VILLAGE, S
MADIKERI THALUK_– 571—2D1-_
KODAGU DISTRICT; 5 ” I ‘
PONNACHETTIRA |\£.E_i§LAI~II$§£I I
AGED AI30U’r..65f§rEARS ‘
R/AT IBNIVA’LAT’.’A’DI ix/’I’LLA’G.E”–“‘ ”
MADIKERI.TH,’\§_Ui<_;:_ 5..7V1=-'_20_1 »
K0DAGuii.D;»ISTRIcT'~-'; I
SMT
w/0 "MUTl-f|AP'VPA _ _
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS"
R/AT I–3NIvALAv.A’DI_A/ILLAGE
;EVI’ADIKERI’T’H’ALU”( — 571 201
*’I<Q.DASGu DISTRICT
.MT.4§\iA1\.IAM MA
W/o1I.PDDNIAcHA, AGED ABOUT 66YEARS,
TAR/AT'"K_OTHUR VILLAGE
VIRA3-P-ET TALUK — 571 201
I-<D'D_AGu DISTRICT
.""-.SMT MOHINI DILIP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR
IV MAIN, IAF, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE – 560 005
20.
21.
22.
23.
SMT POOVAMMA _
W/O POONACHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT PON NAM PET,
VIRAJPET TALUK — 571 201
RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 20
ARE ACTING THROUGH AND
REP. BY THEIR P.A.HOLDER
A.3.BALAKRISHNA, _
S/O JOYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 5..?_~YE.ARS’,
R/ATIBNIVALAVADIVILLAGE, .;«
MADIKERI THALUK — 571 201″‘:
KODAGU DISTRICT. 1
A C PONNAPPA
S/O LATE CHENGAPPA 3
AGED ABOUT 85’\{E’ARsC* V
R/AT KUSHALNAGAR, +1 571: 201* j_’ _
KODAGU DISTRICT ‘
S/O LATE’-:;..C’HETJGAERA-._
AGED ABOLIT 7’6’Y.E’A.RS” V
MADM1KERT–,5?%1~2O1__ L A
ACBOP£f_3§I4AOi%L:.1:h’V
A H DTLLEEP-_OO TO
S/O LATE A C HEMARAJ
‘AGED ABOUT 31″YEARS
” “<.R/AT_NAKOO.R._v.1LLAGE
KAE\'BAI_L POST, SUNTICOPPA
_sOMAwiARPET TALUK — 571 201
TKO'D.AG.D..D1sTR1CT
24.”.
SMT ~.A7~”H PARVATHY
W/O LATE A C HEMARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
A R/AT NAKOOR VILLAGE
KANBAIL POST, SUNTICOPPA
SOMAWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT – 571201
ARV
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
6
SIVIT A H BHAGYALAKSHMI
W/O LATE HEMARAJ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NAKOOR VILLAGE
KANBAIL POST, SUNTICOPPA
SOMAWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201
ANJAPARAVANDRA UTHAPPA
S/O LATE CHENGAPPA »
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS ._ .;« I
R/AT NEAR SUDARSHAN GUEST HCJSEC». ”
MADIKERLKODAGU DISTRICT 571 201}, – = A
SMT ANJAPARAVANDRA P’AR’\1’ATHY ._
W/O LATE A C GANAPATHY__ A ~.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ‘ .j< V .
R/AT RACE COURSE .ROA_D ;
MADIKERLKODAGU D11STR1’CT
SMT NALTNI«.T13:§:LL1iARRATDi’C.<: ' ._
W/O LA.TE'Aa";C;1GA:\JARATH\__r 1;:
AGED €ABO'u_T' 45 YEARS' S
0CC':'SS.E:NjIOFi':MANAGELRL '
R/(AT _RACE'_-vCQUVRS<E"F1QAD_'
MADIR_ERI,_ K.QDA*G4LJAVA.DI'S_TRICT — 571 201
SMT ku RA SAJ'I':\j.i" AIYAPPA
;w~,'O LATE A 'CA GANAPATHY
°A(3ED ABOUT YEARS
R/AT NEAR D A R QUARTERS
' " » MA..D'IKjERI ~f 5710201
30-.2"
‘=~SMT’ i»?1’gJK§§ATIRA CHAN DINI
D/O ‘LATE A C GANAPATHY
A.GE.D ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/A-T KUN3ILA VILLAGE
» ‘EJRARANE POST, MADIKERI TALUK
..KODAGU DISTRICT — 571 201
RESPONDENTS
>|’22/
THIS MSA FILED U/SEC. 43(1)(u) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10-O6-2010 PASSED
IN R.A.63/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN),
MADIKERI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED O3–O6-2006 PASSED
IN FDP O1/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL”J.U’D’GE
(JR. DN), MADIKERI. ALLOWING THE SUIT FOPg~~PE7fI_TIO:_N
FILED U/S 54 AND U/O XX R-18 OF CFC.
MISC.CVL FILED U/SEC. 151 .R/w.4OR_DER” IPLULE E”
OF CPC, PRAYING TO STAY OPEP,ATI»QNj,O.F*TH.EVQ.RDERA’
DATED 1006-2010 IN RA No.63/2006 ON ‘THE»FgIL.Ef..Q’FV.
CIVILJUDGE, (SR. DN), MADIKERI. _
THIS MSA ALONG WITHTMl:SC.CVL”CC5i~i–ING’,ON FOR
ADMISSION ON THIS.’ DA\;/,1′-H.E–.°COURT”—_lVlADE THE
FOLLOWING:– 5 _ .
This MiSC_eIIa§ne_OLiS’- directed against
the “*.F.SE>eFci;e’e**vFRRR.Jated 1O~O6-2010 in
R.A.NO.f§”3/OE; learned Civil Budge (Sr.
Dvn.), MaOiL:eri~, Val.l0i2ivViAn’§i.’F~~’S’the appeal by common Order
..pasSeۤ. R,_A. NO: 65/2006) remanding the case back
receive Objections from the appellants to
theV””COrnrn’iisS.iEbVner’s Report and after giving them
F7§3pporFtun”ity,SfOr fresh decisions.
AI
2. Heard regarding Admission.
3. The contextual facts are:
The appellant herein had filed O.S.No. 2:17;«a9_seeS:::r§g..y
for partition and separate possession of..the~.._pr.operti”es._l”=
described in the schedule between:
The suit was decreed on 29V~.{)S’–:t97″L’l_’lg-rantigg,.prellim:inary”g
decree holding that the p|ainti’ffsv.:._a’reVenti”tl.¢’dto acres
out of suit schedule l\lo.:10 and
10(a) are entitled to it:Vand.Vv”el.;(.;s’gd.,’ffurther decreed
that defenda4nt_’:Vl4\l’o}1′.’s.it ‘_to16éaij_d.”;€> ‘defendant No.7 branch
are entitledto if C
* preliminary decree FDP
No.1/2002″r..yiias wwfileldy plaintiffs. The trial Court
accve’pte:dl’the app!.ic___a__tiyon filed under Section 54 and under
‘Ord’ar CPC and appointed Commissioner to
sp.ry’ey .V’A’.I=.schedu|e property and prepare sketch,
‘._demar.cate.the properties between plaintiffs and defendants
V’ terms’ of the decree. The Commissioner has submitted a
report, to the trial Court in FOP proceedings. In terms of
uV.Mthe Commissioner’s report trial Court directed that the
schedule property be partitioned amongst the parties and to
rip”
give them respective shares in terms of the decree. A sketch _
is appended to the order.
5. The appellant aggrieved by the said ordvei”.’,:.dated
03-06-2006 filed R.A. No. 63/2006 al|eging””‘-thVat__j:’Vii;he~.
Commissioner who submitted the report was..notfcompe_tent’; ..
Trial Court shouid have directed the
department to conduct surveyfiout Jura.i_ormost»’C>ffi’c_er in ti’-ref’,
Department has prepared the alieged lack
of opportunity to resist’t.he«–Co-mmi.Cs’sioner”s report.
6. The considering aii facts
held that be heard before
Commisisio’neV:r:”sT ‘accepted. Therefore, learned
appeilateé}’ai’dgeTset.,.idsyiydeIthheorder dated O3-O6–2006 in
FDP No. 1}2.rjO2_.p’by the Commissioner’s Report was
*<..Vaccegp3ted__fV'anp_d ha"s«d.i._rected trial Court to receive objection
the appellants and after giving them
oppoirtunity–".ito.7'dVecide the shares of the parties and to pass
7._approp..riateVorders in terms of the decree. Appellants are
A ‘~.ifaggri’e.ved by the said order.
§.§32/
ID
7. The contention of the {earned counsel is that the
appellate Court shouid not have remanded the matter but
should have rejected the Commissioner’s Report.
8. Except the ground stated supra, no.-othe.r:g:.ro*usnd« ‘
is forthcoming in the appeal V.-aga–in«st
Judgment. The learned counsel is”‘un7abie to’–an–s’wer’v’t_as_fi:o.
what wiil be the consequence.._§F’~.VCom.rnissione_r’s._;’Report is?
rejected, because FDPvproceedrin-gthas”-to proc’eved,..and reach
logical end. In other has to be drawn
based on that purpose in
exercise of; under Order XX
Rule tr’iai…..Judge has appointed the
Report has to be either
accepted or’~–.re–vsur»___reAy_”b’e_”~~’iordered. It cannot straight away
Modev.f_or.’effecting partition of agricuitural iand
the code itself.
-foir the reasons discussed above, I find no merit
the appeai and the same is rejected.
501/ ‘2;
Judge?
VK