- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2148 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M A SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE M S ANANTHAIAH, 2. SMT M A ROOPASHREE @ ROOPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE M S ANANTHAIAH, 3. SMT M A NAGASHREE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE M S ANANTHAIAH, THE APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR BROTHER AND GPA HOLDER SRI M.A.SUBRAMANYA THE APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT C/O M.A.SUBRAMANYA NO.105, 8TH CROSS ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU -560072 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K K VASANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALURU -560001 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA -571 401 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA 571401 4. THE TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK, MALAVALLI -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT DEVEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 5. SMT SIDDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, 6. SRI NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, 7. SRI SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA, THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK -571 430 MANDYA DISTRICT CHIKKALINGAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 8. SMT KEMPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, 9. SRI THIBBAIAH @ THIBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, 10. SRI SHIVALINGA @ SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, THE RESPONDENTS 8 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANDEGALA POST, MALAVALLI TALUK -571422 MANDYA DISTRICT 11. SRI MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O MARIGOWDA, RESIDENT OF ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANDEGALA POST, MALAVALLI TALUK 571422 MANDYA DISTRICT SIDDEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 12. SRI MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 13. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 14. SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 15. SRI SHIVU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 16. SRI NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, 17. SMT MAHADEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU THE RESPONDENTS 12 TO 17 ARE RESIDENTS OF ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANDEGALA POST, MALAVALLI TALUK 571422 MANDYA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 TO R10, R12 TO 16 ARE SERVED; R11 TO R17 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2023 PASSED IN R.A.No.22/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED IN OS No.442/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE MALAVALLI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.K. Vasanth, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Gopalakrishna Soodi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Even though the appeal is listed for admission and eight substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum, taking note of the fact that all the parties to the suit having not been arraigned as parties before the First Appellate Court, First Appellate Court without there being written statement of the Government and evidence placed on behalf of the Government, allowed the appeal filed by the Government and setting aside the decree passed by the learned trial Judge, per se cannot be countenanced in law. 3. Assuming for a moment that the Government wanted to challenge the exparte decree, all that the First Appellate Court was required to do is set aside the exparte judgment and permitted the respondents 1 to 4 to contest the suit by remitting the matter to the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 4. Instead, in the absence of any written statement and evidence placed on behalf of the Government, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, ventured to hear the arguments alone and set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court based on the material evidence placed by the plaintiffs. Such a course adopted by the First Appellate Court cannot be countenanced in law. 5. At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the permission may be granted for the Government to file written statement in original suit and matter may be remitted to the trial Court to try the original suit in accordance with law afresh after entertaining the written statement. 6. Sri K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that at this distance of time, if the Government is permitted to contest the suit on merits, plaintiffs would be put to great hardship and injury as the suit itself is of the year 2017. 7. Since there is an averment made by the petitioner himself in the writ petition that he has got right in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 gunduthopu, when he has filed the writ petition before this Court, entertaining the written statement is utmost necessary and case of the plaintiffs needs to be adjudicated afresh after entertaining the written statement. 8. It is also made clear that the plaintiffs are at liberty to file rejoinder, if any, new facts are introduced in the written statement. 9. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the matter and the matter had earlier reached this Court in RSA No.2141/2005 with regard to the rights of the parties and plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed only on the ground of want of Section 80 Civil Procedure Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit before the trial Court shall be expedited as early as possible. 10. At any rate, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court without there being written statement and contra evidence placed by the Government, cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, the following - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32780 RSA No. 2148 of 2023 ORDER (i) Regular Second Appeal is allowed, without answering the substantial questions of law as the suit is sought to be remitted to the trial Court after affording an opportunity to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Government Authorities) to file written statement and contest the suit afresh in accordance with law. (ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (iii) Parties are at liberty to canvass all relevant aspects before the trial Court afresh in accordance with law. (iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR