- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. V. KRISHNA REDDY S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT ALERI VILLAGE, SUGUTUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNEGOWDA S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED 49 YEARS, R/AT MADDERI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101 2. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE, SUGUTUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 3. SMT.NARASAMMA W/O PILLEGOWDA D/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT MADDERI VILLAGE, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. 4. SRI.BEERAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 79 YEARS, R/AT M.MALLANDAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDERI POST, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101 …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.63/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.123/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) KOLAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents' counsel is absent. 2. Present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the validity of the Order passed in R.A.No.63/2009 dated 19.02.2020. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 Suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs- appellants in O.S.No.123/2008 which was decreed in part granting 1/4th share in item No.4 of the suit properties alone. 3.2 Following are the properties involved in the suit and hereinafter referred to as 'Suit properties' for short: SCHEDULE Item No. 1 to 4 are situated at Madderi Village, Vemgal Hobli. Kolar Taluk, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 1. Sy.No. 179/1 measuring 3-10 guntas, bonded on East by : Nayakara Krishnappa West by: Lakshmaiah North by: Kadahalli Munivenkatappa South by: Kullappanavara Lakshminarayanappa 2. Sy.No.85/3 measuring 16 guntas, bonded on East by : Well West by: Avalappanavara Ramaiah North by: R.A.Narayanagowda South by: S.Ramegowda. 3. Land bearing Sy.No. 190/4 measuring 1-09 guntas, bonded : East by: Lakshmaiah West by: Kadahalli Munivenkatappa & Byrappa North by: Kote Byrappa South by: Kadahalli Munivenkatappa 4. Sy.No.84 measuring 5 guntas, bonded on East by : Kote Mnivenkatappa & Chikkamnishamappa West by : R.M. Mnishamegowda North by: Koate Chikka Munishamappa South by: R.N.Venkategowda & Munishamegowda Item No.5 to 7 are situated at Lingapura Village. Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 5. Sy.No.30/1 measuring 13 guntas, bonded on East by : Kote Ramappa West by : Lakshmi Narayanappa North by: Koteramappa South by: Sanyasi Narayanappa 6. Sy.No.4/1 measuring 20 guntas, bonded on East by: Gundu Tyopu West by: Kerekatte North by: Gangimunishamysetty South by: Nayakara Lingappa 7. Sy.No.34/1 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, bonded on East by: Hiragasandra Venkateshappa West by : Govt. Forest North by: S.Ramegowda South by: Narayanaswamy & Anjinappa 4. Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court denying the share in other items of the suit properties, plaintiff filed in appeal in R.A.No.63/2009. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has not considered the additional evidence placed on record by the plaintiff to lay their claim on the remaining properties of the suit and dismissed the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before this Court in R.S.A.No.2172/2009 challenging the validity of the judgement of the First Appellate Court dated 08.06.2010 passed in R.A.No.63/2009. 7. This Court while allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, has directed the First Appellate Court to frame a point for consideration as to whether the additional evidence placed on record by the plaintiff need to be taken on record and if so whether the same needs to be allowed and then pass judgement in accordance with law. 8. Paragraph No.4 of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.2172/2010 is culled out hereunder for ready reference: 4. On perusing the judgment of the first appellate Court, it is found that no where it has referred to the application made by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Definitely this gives rise to a substantial question of law. If in the course of appeal, a party makes an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, that has to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 be decided along with merits of the appeal. If the application deserves to be allowed, it has to follow the procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rules 28 and 29 of CPC. If the appellate Court decides to dismiss the application, once for all judgment on merits of the appeal can be delivered. I find that this application for production of additional evidence being not considered by the trial Court. In this view of the matter, I come to conclusion that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the matter to be remanded to the first appellate Court for consideration of the appeal afresh by considering the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Accordingly appeal is allowed. 9. After remand, the First Appellate Court again heard the matter on merits but did not frame any point with regard to be additional evidence to be accepted or not which is an utter violation of the direction issued by this Court in RSA No.2172/2010. Without framing such a point, again the appeal came to be dismissed by impugned judgement dated 19.02.2020. 10. Same is called in question in this appeal by the appellant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 11. Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that adhering to the direction issued by this Court in directing the First Appellate Court to frame a point as to the admissibility and acceptance of additional evidence has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the First Appellate Court to follow the direction in paragraph No.4 of the judgement of this Court in RSA No.2172/2010 and pass appropriate orders. 12. Respondents are served with the notice of the appeal but they remained absent. 13. Taking note of the same, This Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal needs to be allowed and matter needs to be remitted to the First Appellate to pass the fresh judgement in the light of the directions issued by this Court in paragraph No.4 in RSA - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37753 RSA No. 261 of 2021 No.2172/2010 dated 05.09.2010 after notifying the respondents in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT: BHK