Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2010 DAILYLAW 1320 (KAR)

SRI. M. RAJASHEKHARAPPA v. SMT. ESHWARAMMA

RSA/285/2010 · 2026-07-10

H P Sandesh

body2010

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.285 OF 2010 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.284 OF 2010 (PAR) REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.286 OF 2010 (PAR) IN RSA NO.285/2010: BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI. M. RAJASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 1(b) RUSHABENDRAPPA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1(c) R. MURALIDHARA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS R Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 2(a) C.B. UMADEVI D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AMARAPURA, MADAKSHIRA TALUK SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515281. 2(b) C.B. ANANDA KUMAR S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 2(c) C.B. VEENA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NAGARAMGERE VILLAGE CHELLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 3. 3(a) SRI. SADASHIVAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3(b) M.S.NAGARAJA S/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3(c) SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.3(a) TO 3(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR - 3 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. 4(a) SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4(b) C.M. MOHAN S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(c) C.M. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 4(d) SMT. M. VATSALA W/O THIPPESWAMY & D/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAGARANAGERE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PHG OFFICER HOUSING BOARD COLONY NEAR ST. JOSEPH CONVENT CHITRADURGA. - 4 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 6. SRI ONAKRA MURTHY S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, J.N.KOTE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 7. 7(a) SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7(b) KISHOR M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7(c) ISHWAR M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.7(a) TO 7(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 8. SRI THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 9. SRI SATHISH BABU S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST APPELLANTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI - 5 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SMT. ESHWARAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O C.M.BASAVARAJAPPA & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PRASHURAMAPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 1(b) SHIVAKUMARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DEADY BY LRS. 1(b)(i) SMT. VIMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE G.R. SHIVAKUMARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT HORAKERI DEVARPURA HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 1(b)(ii) SMT. S. JYOTHI D/O LATE G.R.SHIVAKUMARA W/O B.R. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDACHELLURU VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. - 6 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 1(c) SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAMUNI & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS DODDACHELLURU VILLAGE PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 1(d) SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O CHANDRANNA & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS (RETIRED POSTAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE) RESIDING AT LAKSHMAMMA BADAVANE HULIYARU ROAD, HIRIYURU TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 1(e) SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI W/O NAGABHUSHAN & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NEAR MASJID, BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE (HOBLI) CHITRADURGA DISTRICT SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI SINCE DECEASED ON 30.03.2023 BY HER LRS. 1(e)(i) K.M.NAGABHUSHAN W/O LATE K.H.MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 1(e)(ii) B.N.PAVANKUMAR S/O K.M. NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 1(e)(iii) B.N.JAYAPRAKASH S/O K.M.NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS - 7 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 ALL ARE RESIDING NEAR MASJID BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 1(f) SMT. JAYASHREE W/O LATE NAGARAJU & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ANGANAWADI TEACHER. 1(g) SMT. CHANNABASAMMA W/O C.M.OMKARAMURTHY & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ANGANAWADI TEACHER. 1(h) GURUBASAVESHWARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1(f) TO 1(h) ARE RESIDENTS OF J.N.KOTE, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 1(i) SHARANA BASAVESHWARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS REVENUE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF C.K.PURA, KELAGOTE, NEAR RADIO STATION CHITRADURGA TOWN. 2. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 3. VISHWESHWARAIAH S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 8 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 5. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 6. R. MAHANTESHWARAPPA S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF KADEHUDE VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a), R1(c), R1(d), R1(e)(i) to R1(e)(iii), R1(f) to R1(i), R2 TO R4; SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; R1(b)(i) AND R1(b)(ii) – SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.77/2007 ON THE FILE THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.372/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), CHALLAKERE. IN RSA NO.284/2010: BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI. M. RAJASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS - 9 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 1(b) RUSHABENDRAPPA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1(c) R. MURALIDHARA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. 2(a) BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O LATE MALLANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS C.B. UMADEVI D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AMARAPURA, MADAKSHIRA TALUK SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515281. 2(b) C.B. ANANDA KUMAR S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 2(c) C.B. VEENA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NAGARAMGERE VILLAGE CHELLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. - 10 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 3. 3(a) SRI. SADASHIVAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3(b) M.S.NAGARAJA S/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3(c) SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.3(a) TO 3(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. 4(a) SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4(b) C.M. MOHAN S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(c) C.M. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. - 11 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 4(d) SMT. M. VATSALA W/O THIPPESWAMY & D/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAGARANAGERE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. JAYANNA, S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PHG OFFICER, HOUSING BOARD COLONY NEAR ST. JOSEPH CONVENT CHITRADURGA. 6. SRI ONAKRA MURTHY S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, J.N.KOTE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 7. 7(a) SRI MARIYAPPA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7(b) KISHOR M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7(c) ISHWAR M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.7(a) TO 7(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. - 12 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 8. SRI THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 9. SRI SATHISH BABU S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST APPELLANTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S.SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. R. MAHANTESHWARAPPA S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. VISHWESHWARAIAH S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. THIPPESWAMY S/O PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 13 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS RESIDENTS OF KADEHUDE VILLAGE PARASHARAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6. SMT. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 AND 10.07.2025) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; R6 – SERVED UNREPRESENTED ) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.43/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.275/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), CHALLAKERE. IN RSA NO.286/2010: BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI. M. RAJASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS - 14 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 1(b) RUSHABENDRAPPA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 1(c) R. MURALIDHARA S/O LATE RAJASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE MALLANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(a) C.B. UMADEVI D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AMARAPURA MADAKSHIRA TALUK SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515281. 2(b) C.B. ANANDA KUMAR S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 2(c) C.B. VEENA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O NAGARAMGERE VILLAGE CHELLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. - 15 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 3. SADASHIVAPPA, S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3(a) SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3(b) M.S.NAGARAJA S/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3(c) SMT. GEETHAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.3(a) TO 3(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. MANJUNATH S/O LATE MALLANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 4(a) SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4(b) C.M. MOHAN S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4(c) C.M. ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. - 16 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 4(d) SMT. M. VATSALA W/O THIPPESWAMY & D/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAGARANAGERE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. JAYANNA S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PHG OFFICER HOUSING BOARD COLONY NEAR ST. JOSEPH CONVENT CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6. ONKARA MURTHY S/O LATE MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST J.N.KOTE CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 7. MARIYAPA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 7(a) SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 7(b) KISHOR M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7(c) ISHWARA M., S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.7(a) TO 7(c) ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR - 17 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 8. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS AGRICULTURIST. 9. SATHISH BABU S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS AGRICULTURIST APPELLANTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PARASHRAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. VISHWESHWARAIAH S/O PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. THIPPESWAMY S/O PUTTALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST - 18 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 5. R. MAHANTESHWARAPPA, S/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS RESIDENTS OF KADEHUDE VILLAGE PARASHURAMPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6. ESHWARAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 6(a) SMT. SARVAMANGALAMMA W/O C.M.BASAVARAJAPPA & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKACHELLUR VILLAGE PRASHURAMAPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6(b) SHIVAKUMARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA SINCE DEADY BY LRS. 6(b)(i) SMT. VIMALAKSHAMMA W/O LATE G.R. SHIVAKUMARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT HORAKERI DEVARPURA HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6(b)(ii) SMT. S. JYOTHI D/O LATE G.R.SHIVAKUMARA W/O B.R. RAJESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDACHELLURU VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. - 19 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 6(c) SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAMUNI & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS DODDACHELLURU VILLAGE PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6(d) SMT. NIRMALAMMA W/O CHANDRANNA & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS (RETIRED POSTAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE) RESIDING AT LAKSHMAMMA BADAVANE HULIYARU ROAD, HIRIYURU TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 6(e) SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI W/O NAGABHUSHAN & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NEAR MASJID, BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE (HOBLI) CHITRADURGA DISTRICT SMT. SHANTHAKUMARI SINCE DECEASED ON 30.03.2023 BY HER LRS. 6(e)(i) K.M.NAGABHUSHAN W/O LATE K.H.MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 6(e)(ii) B.N.PAVANKUMAR S/O K.M. NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 6(e)(iii) B.N.JAYAPRAKASH S/O K.M.NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING NEAR MASJID - 20 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT TALUK AND DISTRICT 6(f) SMT. JAYASHREE W/O LATE NAGARAJU & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ANGANAWADI TEACHER. 6(g) SMT. CHANNABASAMMA W/O C.M.OMKARAMURTHY & D/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ANGANAWADI TEACHER. 6(h) GURUBASAVESHWARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6(f) TO 6(h) ARE RESIDENTS OF J.N.KOTE, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6(i) SHARANA BASAVESHWARA S/O LATE RUDRAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS REVENUE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF C.K.PURA, KELAGOTE, NEAR RADIO STATION CHITRADURGA TOWN. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25.03.2025) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6(a) to R6(i), R6(b)(i) AND R6(b)(ii) AND ALSO FOR R6(e)(i) TO R6(e) (iii); SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.78/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND - 21 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.372/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), CHALLAKERE. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.06.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV JUDGMENT Heard Sri Vighneshwar S. Shastri, learned Senior counsel for Sri Sagar V. Shastri for appellants and Sri D.R. Rajashekarappa and Sri Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsels for the respondents. 2. R.S.A.No.284/2010 is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.43/2008 dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.275/2002 dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere. 3. R.S.A.No.285/2010 is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.77/2007 dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and confirming the judgment and - 22 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 decree passed in O.S.No.372/2002 dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere. 4. R.S.A.No.286/2010 is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.78/2007 dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.372/2002 dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Challakere. 5. In all these regular second appeals, common grounds are urged by all the appellants seeking to set aside the common judgment and decree passed in R.A.Nos.77/2007, 78/2007 and 43/2008 dated 07.10.2009 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. 6. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs in the original suits while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in both the suits i.e., O.S.Nos.275/2002 and 372/2002 is that plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002 have got half share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession and this suit is between the children of late Revanna and the children of late - 23 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Puttalingappa. The defendants in the said suit contended that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of both the families and contend that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. The suit in O.S.No.372/2002 is filed by sons of late Puttalinganna against defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are the sons of Revanna and other defendants, who are the sons of Eswarappa, Mallamma and Mallappa, wherein they contend that all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendants and also contend in the suit that partition deed dated 30.08.1978 is not binding upon their share on the ground that there was no earlier partition between the sons of propositus of the family. The defendant No.1 in the written statement took the contention that suit schedule properties situated at Chikkachellur Village belongs to defendant Nos.3 to 11 and neither the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 nor the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have any right in respect of those properties. It is also contented that already there was partition between the family members and suit is barred by limitation and also bad - 24 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and contend that suit itself is not maintainable. 8. The defendant No.12 appeared and filed her written statement contending that she is the daughter of Sannalingappa and she has got share in the properties of her father and raised a counter claim contending that she is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties. 9. The plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.275/2002 as P.W.1 and a witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.275/2002 is examined as D.W.1 and 4 witnesses are examined as D.W.2 to D.W.4. The defendant No.12 is examined as D.W.5 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D142. 10. The Trial Court considering the material on record, dismissed both the suits in O.S.Nos.275/2002 and 372/2002, including the counter claim made by defendant No.12 in answering issue Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.275/2002 as ‘negative’ that plaintiffs failed to prove that they have got half share in the suit schedule properties and defendants failed to prove that - 25 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 the properties mentioned in paragraph No.4 at page No.4 of the written statement are also joint family properties of themselves and the plaintiffs and plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of partition as there was already a partition and the same is evident from the document Ex.D60 and so also answered issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 in O.S.No.372/2002 as ‘negative’ and answered issue No.4, 5 and 6 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that defendants have proved that suit schedule properties situated at Chikkachellur Village belongs to defendant Nos.3 to 11 and plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right and so also, suit is barred by limitation and bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The additional issue framed in O.S.No.372/2002 is answered as ‘negative’ rejecting the counter claim of defendant No.12. 11. Being aggrieved by dismissal of both the suits, the parties have filed three regular appeals in R.A.Nos.77/2007, 78/2007 and 43/2008. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in all the appeals, formulated the points whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.275/2002 and 372/2002 dismissing the claim of partition of the respective parties is perverse, capricious and - 26 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 liable to be interfered by this Court and whether the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere erred in rejecting the counter claim of defendant No.12 in O.S.No.275/2002. 12. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ and allowed the appeals by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.275/2002 and O.S.No.372/2002 dated 16.08.2007 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere and held that plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002 (defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.372/2002) i.e., heirs of Mariyappa together are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties situated at Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur Village. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.275/2002 (plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002) i.e., heirs of Chikkanna together are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties situated at Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur Village. The defendant No.12 in O.S.No.372/2002 i.e., heirs of Sannalingappa together are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in all the suit schedule - 27 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 properties situated at Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur Village which includes the counter claim of defendant No.12 in O.S.No.372/2002. The defendant Nos.3 to 11 in O.S.No.372/2002 i.e., heirs of Basappa together are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties situated at Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur Village. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, present regular second appeals are filed before this Court. 13. The common ground urged by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals is that no dispute with regard to the fact that original propositus of the family is Doddalingappa @ Lingappa and he had six children namely Kariyanna, Mallappa, Mariyappa, Basanna, Chikkanna and Sannalingappa. It is also not in dispute that first son Kariyanna and second son Mallappa died issueless. The third son Mariyappa, fourth son Basanna, fifth son Chikanna and sixth son Sanalingappa are married and having children. The sixth son Sannalingappa is having daughters by name Eswaramma and Deviramma. The legal heir of Mariyappa branch i.e., Revanna had two sons i.e., Thippeswamy and - 28 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Mahanteswarappa, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002. Basappa had two sons Mallanna and Eswarappa and their branches are defendant Nos.3 to 8 through Mallanna and defendant Nos.9 to 11 through Eswarappa. The other son, Chikkanna had a son by name Puttalinganna and his sons i.e., plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.372/2002 have also filed the suit for the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. 14. This Court would like to make it clear at the first instance itself that there is no dispute with regard to the genealogy of the family of the parties and all the families admit that Doddalingappa @ Lingappa is the propositus of the family and no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Now, the very contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals is that the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and also already there was a partition which has taken place long back and subsequently, parties have also acted upon the same. The counsel also contend that there was partition between other two branches of the family and the same was registered on - 29 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 30.08.1978. The counsel also vehemently contend that very suit itself is not maintainable, since already there was a partition and the appellants are the legal representatives of Basappa and in O.S.No.275/2002, the parties have admitted the partition and the suit in respect of O.S.No.275/2002 is filed in respect of the properties which are situated at Kadeudevu Village. The suit in O.S.No.372/2002 is filed in respect of both the Villages i.e., Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur. The counsel would vehemently contend that father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 is signatory to the document of partition dated 30.08.1978 i.e., Puttalinganna had signed the same as witness. Hence, it is very clear that in the document of the said partition deed, it is specifically mentioned that already there was a partition among the family members of propositus Doddalingappa @ Lingappa. Hence, they effected partition among themselves, that means the father of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 has acknowledged that earlier there was a partition and parties have entered into a partition through a registered document dated 30.08.1978. The counsel also submits that M.R. also shows that there was already a partition and IHC is also mentioned in the document Ex.D12. The counsel also submits that in Ex.P1, the name of the parties is - 30 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 clearly mentioned and only the name of Chikkanna and Revanna are mentioned in Ex.D6. The counsel also submits that Exs.D5 to D9 are the sale deeds and partition deed dated 30.08.1978 is marked as Ex.D60. The recitals of the document of Ex.D60 is very clear that already there was partition in the family. Hence, they effected partition among themselves. The document of Ex.D61 is also clear that names of sons of Mallanna are mentioned and Ex.D6 is also evident for partition. 15. The counsel would submit that appellants have purchased the properties after the partition that took place long back and item No.3 was sold in 1991 in terms of Ex.D75 and so also item No.10 was sold as per Ex.D35 and item No.11 was already sold as per Ex.D36. The Ex.D54 to Ex.D59 clearly evidence the fact of partition as well as subsequent sale. The counsel would vehemently contend that First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court failed to comply with the very proviso of Order 41 Rule 31 and not met the issues which have been considered by the Trial Court, particularly issue Nos.2, 4 and 5, i.e., with regard to limitation, and non-joinder of necessary parties and the same was not discussed in the appeal. The counsel would vehemently contend - 31 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 that admission of P.W.1 is very clear with regard to earlier partition and subsequent sale deeds have not been questioned by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 and once the properties were already sold in terms of Exs.D75, D35 and D36, question of granting any relief does not arise. The counsel would vehemently contend that in O.S.No.275/2002, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of partition of half share. But, the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting 1/4th share. But, in O.S.No.372/2002, claimed 1/3rd share and also sought for the relief to declare that partition is not binding. However, the First Appellate Court granted 1/4th share to all in respect of all the suit schedule proeprties. The counsel would vehemently contend that defendant No.12 is not the co- parcener and the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and not met all the issues and only comes to the conclusion that there was no partition and only it is a family arrangement. Even though, First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that already it is only a family arrangement, but erroneously comes to the conclusion that partition was not effected between the parties. - 32 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 16. The counsel would vehemently contend that two applications are filed one under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, wherein it is specifically pleaded that purchasers have not been made as parties and without making them as parties, question of deciding the issue between the parties does not arise. The counsel also vehemently contend that another application is also filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for producing the additional documents and those documents are also necessary for deciding the second appeal. The counsel would vehemently contend that under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, the Court can draw an adverse inference and the respondents have estopped from contending that there was no partition. The counsel also would submit that Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is very clear that plaintiffs had the knowledge about the sale made by the defendants in respect of item Nos.3, 10 and 11. But, not sought any appropriate relief. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the second appeals and also permit the appellants to amend the written statement as sought in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of IPC and also allow the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC. - 33 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 17. Learned counsel for respondents, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 in his argument would vehemently contend that no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The counsel would vehemently contend that there was no partition. Hence, claimed 1/4th share and the First Appellate Court has not committed any error and taken note of the error committed by the Trial Court in relying upon the document of Ex.D60. The counsel also vehemently contend that in the written statement, the defendants specifically pleaded that there was oral partition six years ago and to prove the said factum of oral partition, nothing is placed on record and the same is taken note by the First Appellate Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that in order to prove the factum of oral partition, no documents are produced and parties have also not acted upon it and to evidence the earlier oral partition, no documents are produced. There was no reference of division in any of the revenue records and only it is mentioned as IHC. The counsel would vehemently contend that the partition in terms of Ex.D60 dated 30.08.1978 is only between children of Basappa and Sannalingappa and these plaintiffs are not parties to the said partition. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents - 34 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 available on record and only relied upon the recitals of the document partitions deed at Ex.D60. 18. The counsel would contend that Chikkanna was alive at the time of registration of said partition deed and he has not signed the same. But, not disputed that Puttalinganna, father of the plaintiffs has signed the partition dated 30.08.1978. The counsel would vehemently contend that merely making a signature as a witness cannot be taken into consideration against the respondents/plaintiffs and the Court cannot draw an adverse inference under Section 115 of the Evidence Act. The counsel would vehemently contend that other family members are not parties to the said partition and also contend that even with regard to oral partition, no mutation or other documents evidencing the partition was placed before the Court and all these factors were rightly taken note by the First Appellate Court. The counsel would vehemently contend that First Appellate Court met the issues and the Trial Court has not met all the issues and erroneously comes to the conclusion that already there was a partition in the year 1978 and suit is barred by limitation and it is only a inter-se partition between the children of Basappa and - 35 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Sannalingappa and not among the family members, question of limitation does not arise. The counsel also vehemently contend that limitation starts from the date of knowledge and not from the registration of the partition deed. The First Appellate Court held that it is only a family arrangement and there was no partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. It is contended that there was partition in the year 1935 itself and to evidence the said fact, nothing is placed on record. The First Appellate Court considered the case of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and passed the order reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and the reasoning is very clear. Hence, question of reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court does not arise. The counsel would vehemently contend that Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 not comes to the aid of the appellants as the respondents are not parties to the said partition. The counsel would vehemently contend that detailed objection statement is filed for the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC and so also the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC and question of amendment does not arise and production of additional documents also does not arise. Hence, both the applications requires to be dismissed. - 36 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 19. The counsel appearing for other respondents i.e., plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002 would reiterate the arguments of learned counsel for respondents, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 and contend that in order to prove that there was partition in the year 1935, no documents are filed and parties have also not acted upon the same. The partition of the year 1978 is not binding, since they are not parties to the same. The counsel would vehemently contend that First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has committed an error. Hence, it does not require any interference. 20. In reply to this argument of learned counsel for the respondents i.e., plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002 and learned counsel for respondents i.e., plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that in paragraph No.2 of the suit in O.S.No.275/2002, categorically admitted the partition. In O.S.No.372/2002 also, in the written statement categorically admitted that there was partition by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002. Hence, now they cannot blow hot and cold that there was no partition. The counsel also vehemently - 37 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 contend that appellants have purchased the properties and those properties are also stated as joint family properties and the same was also not discussed by the First Appellate Court whether they are entitled for any share in those properties. The counsel would contend that Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 substantiate that there was oral partition. The document Ex.D6 discloses both the names in the revenue documents. The counsel would vehemently contend that the documents at Exs.D60, D61, D66 came into existence subsequently evidencing the factum of partition. The admission of P.W.1 also takes away the case of the respondents. The witness D.W.4 also categorically says that there was already partition and sisters were not made as parties in both the cases in O.S.No.275/2002 and also in O.S.No.372/2002. Exs.D54 to D59 are the documents relating to properties which are purchased and to that effect also there was no finding by the First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have considered the same. The properties which have been sold through the documents of Ex.D34 to Ex.D36 are also included in the partition and the persons, who have purchased the properties are not made as parties. The counsel would vehemently contend that, in order to make counter claim also, - 38 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Article 110 Applies i.e., exclusion of joint family members and in O.S.No.372/2002, only prayer is for partition and not questioned the sale deeds and sought for the relief that partition deed of the year 1978 is not binding and the suit was filed in 2002 after long time. Hence, the Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by limitation and two applications are filed before the Court for amendment as well as additional documents and without making the purchasers as parties to the proceedings, there cannot be any decree and even if any decree is passed, the same cannot be executed. 21. In reply to this argument of learned Senior counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents i.e., plaintiffs in O.S.No.275/2002 and learned counsel for respondents i.e., plaintiffs in O.S.No.372/2002 would submit that at the time of execution of document at Ex.D60, it is specifically mentioned that Chikkanna was alive. Under the circumstances, question of reversing the judgment of the First Appellate Court does not arise. 22. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants, in support his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex - 39 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Court in DIGAMBAR ADHAR PATIL vs. DEVRAM GIRDHAR PATIL (DIED) AND ANOTHER reported in 1995 SUPP (2) SCC 428, wherein it is held that when partition between respondent and his brother was claimed, Tribunals below negativing the claim on grounds that in the cultivation column of the revenue records respondent shown to have cultivated the land and no documentary evidence of partition produced before the authorities, held that tribunals erred in not adverting to Record of Rights evidencing the factum of partition. Record of Rights, corroborates oral evidence regarding partition. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph Nos.5 and 6. 23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SMT. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS vs. ANAND KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in 2025 (4) KCCR 3157 (SC). The Apex Court in this judgment held that plaintiffs failed to plead date of knowledge of sale deeds and suppressed material facts, the Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint, finding it to be a belated and meritless attempt to reopen settled family arrangements, the High Court erred in remanding case despite overwhelming documentary evidence showing partition - 40 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 and sale. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.13 and also paragraph No.17. 24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in SRI S.M. MALLEGOWDA vs. S.M. ANNE GOWDA AND OTHERS in R.F.A.NO.1395/2014 dated 03.07.2015 and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.17 of the judgment. 25. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in YAMANAVVA AND ANOTHER vs. CHANDRAWWA reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2329, wherein also this Court held that admission by the plaintiff in respect of the fact that there was an earlier partition and there is enough material on record based on which both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was partition of the properties between plaintiff and father of the defendant about 35 years back and no substantial question of law arises for consideration and brought to notice of this Court discussion made paragraph Nos.8 and 11. 26. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in SRI K. IMMANNA vs. S. NEMOJI RAO AND OTHER in R.F.A.NO.1206/2004 dated 19.02.2020 and brought to - 41 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph Nos.26 and 27 regarding partition. 27. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in SMT. RENUKAMMA vs. SMT. GIDDAMMA AND OTHERS in R.S.A.NO.1298/2017 dated 17.03.2023 and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in respect of scope of regular second appeal and Article 58 of the Limitation Act and since the suit was filed after the period of limitation, the suit was barred by limitation. 28. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of this Court in BANGARAPPA vs. RUDRAPPA AND ANOTHER in R.S.A.NO.1685/2005 dated 13.01.2012. The counsel relying upon this judgment would contend that First Appellate Court rightly exercised its power while considering the matter. However, taking note of material on record, restored the appeal and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court for its consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 29. This Court while considering the matter at the time of admission, considering the grounds which has been urged by - 42 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 both the appellants and the respondents and also considering the material available on record, framed the following substantial questions of law which reads as hereunder: (a) Whether the first appellate court has failed in its functions in not having addressed the issues 5 and 6, which was decided against the defendants by the trial Court? (b) Whether the first appellate court was justified in not complying with Order XLI Rule 31 in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, without addressing findings as regards issue no.2, which was framed by the trial court and held against the defendants in respect of the suit properties claimed by the defendants as being joint family properties?” 30. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the regular second appeals as well as oral submissions of learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsels for the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.275/2002 and 372/2002 and also considering the substantial questions of law framed by this Court at the time of admission, this Court has to consider the issues involved between the parties in the light of substantial questions of law, particularly keeping in view the scope of Order 41, Rule 31 of CPC. - 43 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 31. Apart from that, in view of the applications which are filed before this Court by the appellants i.e., under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC as well as Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC, the following additional points arise for consideration before this Court: (i) Whether the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC deserves to be allowed to amend the written statement as sought? (ii) Whether the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents deserves to be considered for consideration of these regular second appeals? Substantial question of law (a) and (b): 32. Having considered the substantial questions of law and also the grounds which have been urged in all the three appeals and also the oral submissions of the respective counsel, this Court has to take note of the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal and whether the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not complying with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court without addressing the findings as regards issue No.2, which was framed by the Trial - 44 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Court and held against the defendants in respect of the suit properties claimed by the defendants as being joint family properties. Having considered the material on record, the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession. The Court has to take note of the plaint averments as well as the written statement filed by the defendants in O.S.No.275/2002 and O.S.No.372/2002. The crux of the issue in the suit is whether the plaintiffs have got share in the suit schedule properties and also in terms of the written statement whether already there was a partition. The issue was raised in both the suits with regard to the non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and so also parties claim that in terms of the earlier partition in respect of the properties of both the villages, already there was a partition among the legal heirs of original propositus and so also with regard to the counter claim. 33. Having perused the grounds which have been narrated in all the three appeals and points for consideration framed by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court framed only two points for consideration. The first one is whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the claim of partition of the respective parties is perverse, - 45 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 capricious and liable to be interfered by this Court? The second point for consideration is whether the Trial judge erred in rejecting the counter claim of defendant No.12 in O.S.No.275/2002? Having perused the reasoning of the First Appellate Court, in paragraph Nos.18, 19 and 20 only discussed with regard to the partition and in respect of the document Ex.D.60 partition deed dated 13.08.1978 and so also with regard to the observations made by the Trial Court in respect of the partition is concerned and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Judge erred in relying upon the document of Ex.D.60. It is also observed that if at all a oral partition was effected, as stated in the partition deed between the heirs of Doddalingappa, their names would have been recorded separately in respect of allotment of said properties. No such mutation entries were produced by either of the parties to show the oral partition effected. It is important to note that an observation is made that the revenue entries have been in the name of shares of Doddalingappa in respect of Kadeudevu and Chikkachellur properties separately only indicates that there was an amicable arrangement, possession and enjoyment of the family properties, as the properties were separately situated in two villages without effecting a partition or - 46 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 disruption of the joint family property and absolutely there is no direct evidence of partition available. However, the First Appellate Court fails to take note of the entry found in the RTC mentioning the IHC and all discussion is only in respect of earlier partition. Though point for consideration is framed as to whether the reasoning of the Trial Court is capricious and perverse, the First Appellate Court did not discuss anything about the issue of limitation, which was answered by the Trial Court that suit was barred by limitation and also with regard to suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as contended in paragraph No.2 of the written statement. A specific issue was framed in O.S.No.372/2002 i.e., issue No.5 in view of the said defence that suit is barred by limitation on the ground that there was already a partition and also issue No.6 with regard to the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and no such points were framed and no such discussion was made by the First Appellate Court. Hence, it is clear that the First Appellate Court was not justified in not complying with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. - 47 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 34. The First Appellate Court being the statutory Appellate Court, ought to have discussed both question of fact and question of law while dealing with the first appeal and there were issues with regard to the limitation as well as mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and it was specifically pleaded that the properties were sold subsequent to the oral partition and also specifically pleaded that purchasers have not been made as parties and the same is non-joinder of necessary parties. The law is settled that when an appeal is filed and the same being the statutory appeal, the same is like a suit and though it is termed as an appeal, all the pleadings as well as the evidence ought to have been assessed by the First Appellate Court both in the respect of question of fact and question of law and the same has not been done. Hence, in this regard, I would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MANJULA AND OTHERS v. SHYMANSUNDAR AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 3 SCC 90, wherein it is held that the judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the Court's findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all issues, along with contentions put - 48 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 forth and pressed by parties. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment reads as under: “8. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state: (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Thus, the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate court’s jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. The first appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for re-consideration. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court’s findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by - 49 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 the parties. Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment.” 35. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MALLURU MALLAPPA (D) THR. L.RS. v. KURUVATHAPPA AND OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/0166/2020, wherein in paragraph No.11, it is held as under: “11. Section 96 of the CPC provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by any court exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear the appeals from the decisions of such courts. In the instant case, the appeal from the decree passed by the trial court lies to the High Court. The expression ‘appeal’ has not been defined in the CPC. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edn.) defines an appeal as “a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher authority.” It is a judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of a subordinate court to rectify any possible error in the order under appeal. The law provides the remedy of an appeal because of the recognition that those manning the judicial tiers too commit errors.” - 50 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 36. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of SHASIDHAR AND OTHERS v. ASHWANI UMA MATHAD AND ANOTHER reported in MANU/SC/0025/2015, in paragraph No.21 held as under: “21. Being the first appellate court, it was, therefore, the duty of the High Court to decide the first appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred on it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code mentioned above. It was unfortunately not done, thereby, causing prejudice to the appellants whose valuable right to prosecute the first appeal on facts and law was adversely affected which, in turn, deprived them of a hearing in the appeal in accordance with law.” 37. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.VENKATA SWAMY v. H.N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. AND OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/1518/2017, wherein the scope of Section 96 of CPC is discussed in detail. In paragraph No.11 it is held that the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellant to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the First Appellate Court to appreciate - 51 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 the entire evidence and arrival at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference. In this judgment, the Apex Court relied upon the judgment in the case of SANTOSH HAZARI v. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI (DECEASED) BY L.Rs. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179, wherein at pages 188-189 it is held as under: …. The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the Trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court……While reversing a finding of fact the Appellate Court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the Court hearing a further appeal that the First Appellate Court had discharged the duty expected of it………….” - 52 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 38. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of MADHUKAR AND OTHERS v. SANGRAM AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 4 SCC 756, reiterated that sitting as a Court of first appeal, it is the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. 39. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of H.K.N. SWAMI v. IRSHAD BASITH reported in (2005) 10 SCC 243, in paragraph No.3 held as follows: “3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the First Appellate Court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the First Appellate Court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title.” 40. The Apex Court in the case of JAGANNATH v. ARULAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in (2005) 12 SCC 303, - 53 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 held that a Court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion. 41. The Apex Court in the case of MAHENDER PAL CHABRA AND ANOTHER v. SUBHASH AGGRAWAL reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 331, in paragraph No.8 held that the First Appellate Court is the last Court which can appreciate the evidence of record and record findings of fact. As such, a first appeal normally should not be thrown out at the stage of Order XLI to 11 CPC just as a plaintiff normally is not rejected under Order VII to 11 CPC except for and on the grounds stated in the said provision The appellate having paid full court fees would be entitled to a reasonable discussion of the points raised in first appeal based on appreciation of evidence laid before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court at least ought to have discussed the points raised by the appellant. 42. Having perused the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, as well as the material available on record, this Court would like to answer the substantial questions of law (a) and (b) that the First Appellate Court has failed in its function in not having addressed issue 5 and 6, which was decided against the plaintiffs before the Trial Court - 54 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 with regard to the limitation, as well as suit is for bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The second substantial question of law is also whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, without addressing the findings as regards to issue No.2 in O.S.No.372/2002 and nothing is discussed in respect of issue No.2 in O.S.No.372/2002. It is also the specific case of the defendants that the properties, which have been included in the suit schedule properties are the properties purchased by them subsequent to the oral partition and also three items of the suit schedule properties have already been sold and also necessary parties have not been made as parties. The said ground also should have been considered by the First Appellate Court and the same has not been considered. The First Appellate Court only concentrated with regard to whether there was an earlier partition or not. 43. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the father of the plaintiffs has signed the registered partition deed in the year 1978, when it was taken place between the parties and he had the knowledge of partition among themselves and he was also a witness to the - 55 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 said document and the same has not been properly appreciated by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the matter requires re- consideration and the First Appellate Court has to exercise the powers under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC in complying with the same as being the original proceedings treating the statutory appeal as the original proceedings both in respect of question of fact and question of law. Additional point for consideration No.(i) and (ii): 44. The appellants/defendants have filed an application I.A.No.2/2014 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC praying this Court to amend the written statement filed in O.S.No.372/2002, wherein it is specifically pleaded to amend the written statement in detail that during the lifetime of the four brothers, they have divided the joint family properties which were available at that time under oral partition about more than 66 years back as on the date of filing of the suit somewhere in the year 1936. In that oral partition, the property situated at Kadehude Village were allotted to the share of Mariyappa and Chikkanna and the property situated at Chikkachelluru were allotted to the share of Basappa and Sannalingappa. Thus, the joint family was disrupted. The son of - 56 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 Mariyappa by name Revanna representing the estate of his father continued to enjoy the properties along with his uncle Chikkanna. Therefore, the revenue authorities effected change of khatha and pahani separately in the name of Mariyappa and Revanna vide IHC No.2/1960-61 as evidenced by the entries mentioned in the revenue records separately till the date of filing of the suit. During the year 1978 there was heavy debt incurred by the family consisting of Basappa and Sannalingappa which was outstanding and hence, got divided the property by a registered partition deed dated 30.08.1978. It is also the specific case of the defendants that the parties were dealing with their properties individually and khatha, pahani and all other revenue entries have been changed showing the name of respective shares in accordance with the partition of the family properties. The defendant No.12 Eshwaramma and her sister Deveeramma have been enjoying the properties separately and their names have been entered in the RTC of the properties allotted to the share of Sannalingappa. It is also specifically pleaded to amend the written statement paragraph No.11B and C to that effect. It is pleaded that the properties were sold in the year 1992 and 1995 and all these materials substantiate their defence that already there was a partition. - 57 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 45. No doubt, objection statement is filed to oppose this application by respondent No.4 and the same is adopted by respondent Nos.3 and 5. It is specifically contended that after long gap, the present application is filed. On the other hand, it causes prejudice. Having considered original pleadings of the written statement and also the present pleading of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the same is in corollary with the defence which have been taken earlier in the written statement and in this written statement it is only elaborately pleaded giving all details to substantiate that there was already a partition and the parties have acted upon and subsequent to the partition taken place long back 66 years ago, in the year 1978 there was a partition among the two branches of the family of original propositus and some of the properties were purchased and some of the properties were also sold. 46. Now the question before this Court is whether this Court can permit for an amendment. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of SHIVSHANKARA AND ANOTHER v. H.P. VEDAVYASA CHAR reported in (2023) 13 SCC 1, with regard to entertaining an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 – amendment of written statement at - 58 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 appellate stage, categorically held that permissible in rarest of rare case, having regard to attending circumstances and not on mere asking. But the Court should avoid hypertechnical approach. In this judgment, it is made clear that if it is required, the same can be amended even at the appellate stage. 47. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. REVANNA v. ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 4 SCC 332, with regard to when an application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint, it is held that leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC virtually prevents such nature of amendment. The Court has to keep it in mind whether it amounts to introduction of new case. But in the case on hand, no such introduction of new case and only amendment is sought making elaborate in the written statement giving full details. 48. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of BASAVARAJ v. INDIRA AND OTHERS reported in (2024) 3 - 59 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 SCC 705, taken note of with regard to the amendment of plaint and the same is by way of amendment seeking relief of declaration. Even if amendment is permitted, relief sought by way of amendment was time barred was taken note of. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER reported in (2022) 16 SSC 1, held that not a bar to amendment otherwise permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and the same is not precluded from making an amendment and the same is clarified in this judgment and held that it is well settled that the Court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the Court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the Court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really subserve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. In the case on hand, it is nothing but explaining in - 60 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 detail giving full particulars for amendment and the same is not introducing a new case. 49. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of AKKIRAJU PANDURANGA RAO v. GUNDLAPALLY RANGA RAO reported in (2026) SCC Online SC 805 taken note of scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in paragraph No.14 and in paragraph No.17 held that while deciding an application seeking amendment of pleading, the Courts should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather, a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the object and purpose of allowing the amendment in the pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 50. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also the reasoning given in the application, the same is only for amendment in detail corollary to the earlier defence, which was taken by the defendants/appellants and the same will not cause any prejudice. Hence, I.A.No.2/2014 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC can be allowed. Hence, I answer the point accordingly. - 61 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 51. I.A.No.3/2014 is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC praying this Court to permit the appellants to produce additional documentary evidence. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to that, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court committed an error and contend that on account of inadvertence and bonafide mistake, certain factual aspects which have admittedly taken place within the full knowledge of the contesting respondents and evidenced by registered documents have not been pleaded. When the discussion was made with the counsel, came to know that certain factual aspects which have admittedly taken place within the knowledge of the contesting respondents, ought to have been pleaded in the written statement and also should have been produced before the Court and hence obtained the certified copies of the documents from various offices of the Government such as Sub-Registrar and also the office of the Tahsildar. On going through the documents which have been obtained, it is noticed that the claim made by the plaintiffs and the counter claim made by defendant No.12 are false and fictitious. For the final and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties, these documents are necessary i.e., - 62 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 registered sale deeds and mutation register extracts relating to some of the suit schedule properties so as to bring to the notice of the Court the events that have been taken place before filing of the suit and those documents are very much necessary to decide the appeal. 52. This application is also opposed by filing statement of objections contending that this application is filed belatedly and those documents are not necessary for adjudication of the issues involved between the parties. 53. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the application as well as statement of objections, no doubt these documents are not produced before the First Appellate Court while disposing of the matter. Only in this second appeal these documents are produced. But it is the specific case of the defendants before the Trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation as well as bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is specifically pleaded with regard to the sale of the property and purchase of some of the properties and also suit is filed for partition in respect of those properties, which have been purchased subsequent to the oral partition. When such plea was taken, this Court allowed the - 63 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to take up the specific defence in detailed written statement. The additional documents sought to be produced are the registered documents which came into existence subsequently according to the defendants i.e., sale deed dated 20.12.1978 executed by the father of appellants Nos.1 to 6 in favour of Basanna S/o Lingappa, sale deed dated 23.07.1992 executed by appellants Nos.7 to 9 and their mother Smt. Lingamma in favour of Chikanna S/o Kariyappa, sale deed dated 27.03.1995 executed by appellant Nos.1 to 6 in favour of Eranna and Mahalingappa, sons of Ninganna, sale deed dated 27.01.2003 executed by appellant No.6 and his wife Smt. Channabasamma in favour of Thippamma W/o Thippeswamy and Veeramma W/o Mahantheshappa, mutation register extracts in respect of MR No.1/1979-80, M.R.No.12/1991-92, M.R.No.4/1995-96 and M.R.No.11/2002-2003. The crux of the issue involved between the parties is with regard to whether there was already a partition or not. It is the case of the plaintiffs before the Court that there was no such partition and the defence of the appellants is that there was already a partition and the same was taken place long back. The Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that there was a family arrangement and there - 64 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 was no partition of metes and bounds and when such issue is raised before the Court, it is appropriate to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and the same is necessary for deciding the issue involved between the parties and the second appeal does not preclude from filing such an application. Hence, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 also needs to be allowed. 54. In view of the discussions made above and as this Court comes to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court committed an error in not complying with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, the matter requires to be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for consideration of the matter afresh permitting the appellants to amend the written statement as well as file the additional documents. In view of allowing of these applications, the matter requires to be remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider the same as the First Appellate Court fails to exercise the powers and comply with Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. The First Appellate Court requires to record the evidence in view of the additional evidence as well as additional written statement and both the parties may be given an opportunity to substantiate their case. It has to be - 65 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 noted that, there was a sale of the properties and sale deeds are also executed by the appellants on different dates and hence, the purchasers are also to be made as parties to the proceedings, since in their absence, if any decision is taken, it may affect their rights. The plaintiffs have sought for the relief in respect of the properties, which have been sold and hence, they may be heard. Considering all these matters into consideration and also the substantial questions of law answered by this Court and also the additional points for consideration, this Court passed the following: ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The impugned judgments passed in R.A.Nos.43/2008, 77/2007 and 78/2007 are set aside. (iii) The applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are allowed. (iv) The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to consider the appeals in view of the observations made by this Court. The First Appellate Court is directed to give an opportunity to the respective parties. - 66 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 (v) The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 27.07.2026. (vi) The plaintiffs are directed to implead the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule properties against the said sold properties they made the claims. (vii) The plaintiffs are also directed to file necessary application immediately to bring the purchasers as parties to the proceedings within one month from that date. (viii) The First Appellate Court is directed to give an opportunity to the purchasers as well as the parties in the appeal to substantiate their case by adducing their evidence and in view of impleadment of subsequent purchasers and this Court having taken note of the same in abundant caution, the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within one year from 27.07.2026. (ix) The parties already in the appeal need not expect any notice from the First Appellate Court and shall voluntarily appear before the Court on 27.07.2026 without fail. - 67 - RSA No. 285 of 2010 C/W RSA No. 284 of 2010 RSA No. 286 of 2010 (x) The Registry is directed to send the records to First Appellate Court, forthwith to enable the First Appellate Court to take up the matter on 27.07.2026. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST/MD