- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2024 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.RAJANNA, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 2. SRI.SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT YAMAGUMBA VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 134. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.B.S.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: C.LINGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, SRI.NATARAJ, S/O LATE LINGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 1. SMT.KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI.HARISHA, S/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 3. SRI.SATHISHA, S/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT YAMAGUMBA VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 134. 4. SMT.BHARATHI, W/O VEERABHADRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A HEGGANDURU VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 134. 5. SMT.SARALA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107. 6. SRI.SHIVALINGAPPA, S/O LATE C.LINGAPPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT YAMAGUMBA VILLAGE, HANAGUDU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 134. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE (1)(u) READ WITH SECTION 104 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2023 PASSED IN RA No.6/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in RA No.6/2022 dated 11.09.2023 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, whereby the Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the Trial Court for consideration on the mesne profits, the appellants are before this Court. 2. Originally, Mis.No.3/2013 was filed by the appellants herein and the Trial Court, by order dated 09.12.2020, had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 allowed the same in part and the respondents were directed to pay the mesne profits for an amount of Rs.2,05,102/- and also directed to pay the future mesne profits as ordered to the appellants herein within three months from the date of the order, failing which the appellants are at liberty to recover the same from the respondents in accordance with law. Aggrieved thereby, they had filed RA No.6/2022, that came to be allowed by setting aside the order in Mis.No.3/2013 and remanded the matter by order dated 11.09.2023. While remanding the matter, the Appellate Court had observed that, the appellants' claim spans from the years 1993-94 to 2012-13 and the Trial Court had restricted the mesne profits to the years from 2002- 03 to 2012-13 without providing a clear rationale for this limitation. The Appellate Court had also observed that, the Trial Court erred in not considering the entire claim period for the award of mesne profits. The principles of justice and equity dictate that, the appellants should be compensated for the full duration of their loss. The Trial Court's reduction of the yield per acre from 800 kg to 50 kg without adequate justification is not supported by sound legal principles and had directed the Trial Court to decide the entitlement of the appellants for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 mesne profits and also had directed the Trial Court to consider the evidence in respect of making calculation of the mesne profits as observed by the Appellate Court. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, when all the material is before the Appellate Court, the Court ought to have determined the mesne profits without remanding the matter and remanding the matter will not serve any better purpose. He submitted that the Appellate Court, without considering all these aspects, had in a mechanical manner, remanded the matter. 4. Though notice is served on the respondents, no vakalat is filed on their behalf. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. The appellants are seeking mesne profits from 1993-94 to 2012-13 and the Trial Court had restricted the same to 2002-03 to 2012-13 without providing a clear rationale for the limitation and even on the rates of that particular year also were reduced. In those circumstances, the Appellate Court had also given a finding that, they are entitled for the mesne profits as sought by them. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15655 MSA No. 1 of 2024 But however, to determine the quantum, the Appellate Court had remanded the matter. This Court is not able to understand how it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellants and how they are aggrieved by the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court had rightly heard the matter and remanded the matter, which is very much in the interest of the appellants. The order was passed on 11.09.2023 and the appellants have approached this Court and from the last two years, the matter is pending before this Court. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to fix a timeline for the Trial Court to dispose of the petition. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a period of six months as per the procedure as observed by the Appellate Court in points No.2 to 7 of the operative portion of the Appellate Court order. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48