.. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAEQRE DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF AuGusT...2'OEi':0"§'1; V. BEFORE " ' THE HOWBLE MR.3UST1CI:mRA\/1 REGULAR SECOND~'APP1EAlQN.C5.662VC:'FC.'2:O0f? :3. V BETWEEN: Sri Kate Gowda S/0 late D_O'c!da"ahan'n.e'---f3owd"a»,- Aged at)o_uf*S;7.years,u% ' R/0 Neiamane'\f:'l.l.age,°»._ " K.She't'ti_halJi Hub:-:.._,= ._ Srirangapatrna Taluk,' Mandya Dist.ri'Ct;" ' ...APPELLANT ' 31.5 Ré,.G0pévié§vvamy, Advocate) H '-- AN'Dx: Sé*'eV":'t..C4'f.1annamma VV/:5 late Dodda Channe Gowda, AA '*-.__S£nc:e dead by her LRS 2. Sri Deve Gowda S/0 iate Dodda Channe Gowda, Aged about 52 years. 3. Sri Nagaraju S/o fate Dodda Channe Gowda, Since dead by his LRS 3(a) Smt.Kempamma W/0 iate Nagaraju Aged about 47 years. 3(b) Sri Naveen S/0 Eate Nagaraju, Aged about 19 years. 3(c) Nandeesha S/o late Nagaraju _ _ Aged about 17 years.___V"'-...V_ 3(a) Darianj:.ay_a V _ ._ 'S/0, _E ate Niaga r'aj>u-. Aged3b°1:'"~15"Y€3_F3~ J 3(b) t o,3(dy) a:e't.ad%rm§r~§t:;%"'« representeci by theiaf raatural guiardjan/nfiother'i.e;, 3(a) ' SvrVi"i<aEve"g'owda @ Raja ._ AA'S,/.o«V..E.VatefDodda Channe Gowda Aged-"about 34 years. 5." Srr:_Papanna Sfo iate Dodda Channe Gowda, A ;"'«-._Aged about 30 years. Smt.Thayai<ka D/o tate Dodda Channe Gowda, Aged about 49 years. Respondents No.1 to 8
Are R/o Neiamane Viilage,
K.ShettyhaIié Hobli,
Srir angapatna Taluk,
Mandya District.
7. Smt.Devarnma
D/o iate Dodda ChanneVGowda__
Dead by her LR * ‘ v
Sri Venkatappa
S/o Ananthaiah, Major V
R/0 Kodimuddanahpaili Vi’|’i’age;
Hebbur Hobli, _
Tumkur District. ‘ ;._.RESPO|\EDE|\ETS
(By Sri K.V_…E\ia.fajsirnijang,’A«dvoc’ateVVfor”§R2 to 6,
–R7–abated)_ .0 = ‘
>i:>i<éi<_V H'
'Tvhi°s_RSiAtfi'ied_"-under section 100 cpc against the
Judgment and-_ D_ecte'e dated 18.3.2004 passed in
R.;A;!\igo.8/2000"on the file of the District Judge, Mandya,
aitowingg the'ap.p_e_a!v and setting aside the Judgment and
3 _d'ecre'3e dtated 13.3.2000 passed in O.S.No.2/1991 on the
' 'fiieg Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna.
t':'uh'is coming on for hearing this day, the court
d..e|iv_e'red..'.=the foiiowing : «
3UDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Judgment 8: decree of the first
appeilate Court dated 18~3–~2004 passed in R.A.No.8/2000
by the iearned District Judge, Mandya, aiiowing the appeal
'W'
..4..
and Consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, the
plaintiff No.1 has filed the present appeal.
2. The parties would be referred
rank before the trial Court. _
The plaintiffs fiied a suit
possession. They cohteh~d_% tha__t’._1t»-heii”‘”die’E:ease::il
Doddachannegowda ,.died, l.ea\l}iLn.q”~~.behind’him/itwo wives
namelvvDiiexfiarniiaa. a-nVd—-.VCha’nna~.’hma. The first wife pre-
deceiased her had one son and one daughter.
The piaVVi’n–.t,_iVlff’vs sV’e_con_d ‘Wife Channarnrna died after the fiiing
soit, li”eaV.i.U€,1» behind four sons and one daughter.
‘ ;VV’DuVring’~.t:he””vlifetime of Doddachannegowda the plaintiffs
‘qa’nd tVhe”.”tdeffendants were living together jointly. A ciaim
was Vsethiop for their share and the same having been
if if denied the suit was filed seeking for partition and separate
possession.
PA»–~
_5_
3. The defendants claim that theVV.de:Ce_ased
Doddachannegowda had oniy one
Channamrna and not Devamrna as alie.gve.du_j’:’aVnd-lflthat
pfalntlffs are not at all the i;_hild.renj. wolf'{4th’e4dec_ea.sed. ‘
Consequently they contend’ that thev.ai!otme’nit”nfvant};
does not arise for conslderatlV6in_.i’ _
4. The trial _(_:Q:l’urt i_fra’rn.in§gf_-6″ Issues came to
the conclusi_bn}:;h.at the p;_la’int’i_’rrs:’ liaveenmade out a case and
acco.rdlngh/’li:g3a_rt:l3y’A djetreed the suit. It held that the
plaintiffs “toget.h«er.’A’aré._Aj_e”r:t’l.tled for 1/4″‘ share in the suit
Iteimsul td Band 6.”‘toT9. The claim for suit Etems 4 & S
. _v§;’as Erejeltted. Vnéwgérieved by the same, the defendants
Va”n:’.appea£ wherein by the Judgment & decree
d-atedd.-1$Vl¥4i3¥l2O04 the appeal was allowed and the suit of
n the “plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeai.
?_%/—-/
……’]…..
decree. He contends that the substantial question of law
requires to be answered in their favour by hoidinVg7′.t:ha_t the
reappreciation of evidence by the first app_e’i’ia’te.s’_~Cjourt”is
just and reasonable and there is no error. =c–orfimitted«_by_’tii«e»’°–._
first appeilate Court while doing so…eAi%Iveu’c»o”:ntend’s”that:the ”
evidence on record wouid.__ disciosfe the”‘i’c!ai_m ]_3f”th’e;
plaintiffs with regard to theft’ivrelatyionsh-inf’:of the deceased
and as to whether..4_._”they-ifareVl”t.he:”‘re_ai children of the
deceased or not. A
8._ — Aif’lite-aideico’uris,e|s and examined the records.
. “”fi’rst””–._aijiaeilate Court considering the
Jugdghoentlf &__de’creVe and by examining all the material
«.ye”vidé.?i¢cei”‘«oh record came to the conclusion that the
‘.ip_:afint4iffsl’_ iia_ve’ failed to make out a case entitiing them for
at de_;ire-er” for partition. The first appeliate Court having
.. Vuframeifi 5 issues for its determination came to the
«’1_V”conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs requires to: be
if rejected.
We
..g_
10. A perusal of the Judgment of the first appellate
Court would indicate that there is no reference made by
the Court with regard to the impugned
before it. There is no reference by the firs_t:ap.pei,il:at’e Cotiff
as to the reasons as to why it;.’dis’a’g’i-gégg withi ‘Eh-€v:g’fé’VFi_dgi:ng 7.
recorded by the trial Court._ The’-first appei’.i.ate Court'<was
in tangent in reappreciatingi'i».othie entire 'ma-iterial evidence
on record without re':fe.ren(:'e to iitihegnvfindings iir"me reasons
of the trial Court. It'fivth'eréf§zr§_'..aPDegr that the
JudgmentJ'§'§i._-igdygecriee.;:of___the first appellate Court has no
reference at 'allA'to'A'the—._i'rr.';3'ugned Judgment & decree under
appeal. i'VheJud'gin"erit 8: decree of the first appellate Court
_ V'b'eing"iirindependentwof the Judgment of the trial Court would
V.ithel'eVfo..re unsustainable and hence cails for
i–n_terferen~ce.
11. The first appeliate Court while considering the
Judgment & decree is duty bound. to consider the
reasoning given by the trial Court to interfere with the
rrr
.. lg ..
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeat is
a!Eowed and the matter stands remitted
appellate Court to hear both the partie:svjV’aVnd”h
appropriate orders in accordanceiwwith law; .V:In._rjvo’Eng So, 7.
the first appellate Court shall Vnotfihe in.f§_ue’ricedn
manner whatsoever by the”‘}4udigment–of’the Vappeiiate
Court.
In view of the o_.f:.ifthAfe.V’s’;git since the year
199:, it V3so:§r1:,ddI’~beJirstfia’nd~.i”.i?e.@_§§fh3We to direct the
appeiiate:xCfo_urt_:nto and dispose of the same by the
end of
I__fOffice’is*di.r.eCted to return the records forthwith.
-v._V4Bo:th””the parties are directed to appear before the
‘– .rrrs’t apfiejisérté Court on 13-9-2010.
Swal-
Judge
Rsk/–