- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MS. NETRAVATHI. C. R. WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE PLAINT AS NEETRAVATHI C Y AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, D/O LATE C Y RAMASWAMY R/AT NO.12, 12TH CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, CUBBONPET BENGALURU 560 057 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANANTHARAM G.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. L. MANJULA W/O LATE C R LAKSHMANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.54/11 19TH A CROSS 6TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560082 2. KUM NAVYA L D/O LATE C R LAKSHMANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.54/11 19TH A CROSS 6TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560082 3. KUM DIVYA D/O LATE C R LAKSHMANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 R/AT NO.54/11 19TH A CROSS 6TH BLOCK JAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560 082 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAIK N .R., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2022 PASSED IN OS No.2938/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant in O.S.No.2938/2007 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed by the XXIV City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs claiming to be the wife and children of late C.R. Lakshmana Murthy, filed the instant suit for declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for other reliefs in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 relation to the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties comprises of movable and immovable properties. The appellant-defendant, initially filed written statement disputing and denying the claims of the respondents-plaintiffs. Subsequently, the appellant-defendant filed additional written statement and put forth a counter claim against the plaintiffs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In pursuance of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “(1) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the legal heirs and successors of C.R. Lakshmana Murthy? (2) If so, whether plaintiffs are entitled for the return of pass books deposit, joint deposit receipts and all the registered documents from the defendant? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as sought for in relief ‘C’? (4) Whether the suit is properly valued and court fee paid is sufficient? (5) What order or decree? Additional issues framed on 29.04.2015 (1) Whether the defendant proves that the office premises including the attached residential portion in which the defendant has been staying since the date of its purchase he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 (2) Whether the defendant further proves that suit schedule property was mortgaged in favour of the defendant, but the name of one C.R. Lakshmanamurthy has been mentioned as the mortgagee and the defendant had contributed the mortgage amount? (3) Whether the defendant further proves that on 25.06.1998 plaint suit property was sold in favour of defendant and name of C.R. Lakshmanamurthy is shown as the purchaser and sale consideration was paid by the defendant? (4) Whether the defendant further proves that she is the owner of the plaint schedule property? (5) Whether the defendant further proves that he has perfected his title over the plaint schedule property by way of adverse possession? (6) Whether the defendant further proves that he is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of suit? (7) Whether the defendant further proves the alleged interference of the plaintiff? (8) Whether the defendant further proves that plaintiff is attempting to alienate the plaint schedule property? (9) Whether the defendant further proves that he is entitled for relief as prayed in the counter claim? Additional issue framed on 03.10.2016 (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that they are entitled for possession of documents and the property shown at Item - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 No.9 in the plaint schedule with damages till handing over premises as prayed? 4. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW.1, while plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.2 and documentary evidence at Exs.P- 1 to 22 were marked. The appellant-defendant examined herself as DW.1 and six witnesses were examined as DWs.2 to 7 and documentary evidence at Exs.D.1 to 16 were marked. 5. After hearing both parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs by holding as under: "Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed. Plaintiffs are declared as legal heirs and successors of late C.R. Lakshmana Murthy. Further, defendant is directed to hand over documents with respect to item No.9 of suit schedule property and hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. Draw decree accordingly if proper court fee for possession is paid." 6. A decree was drawn up in terms of the operative portion of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 7. A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned judgment and decree is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the various contentions urged by the appellant- defendant in support of her counter claim have not been addressed by the Trial Court. In fact, the Trial Court has even failed to pass judgment and decree on the counter claim put forth by the defendant under Order 8 Rule A CPC. Under these circumstances, with the consent of both sides, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, by exercising my power under Section 107 and 151 CPC r/w. Order 41 Rule 23-A and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh by issuing certain directions in this regard. 8. In the result , I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2022 passed in O.S.No.2938/2007 by the XXIV Additional City - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-6), Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) The Trial Court shall consider the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs as well as the counter claim of the appellant-defendant and dispose of the entire matter, afresh, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties. (v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs and counter claim of the appellant-defendant are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. (vii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. (viii) Registry is directed to refund the entire (100%) Court Fee paid on the Memorandum of Appeal, back to the appellant, without any delay. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9680 RFA No. 958 of 2023 (ix) The Trial Court Records be send back to the Trial Court. (x) The appellant and respondents are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 24.03.2025, without awaiting further notice. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95