- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2024 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DODDAVADDANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT SANNERAMMA W/O DODDAVADANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SMT KARIYAMMA W/O NAGANNA D/O LATE DODDAVADDANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3. SRI SIDDESH S/O LATE DODDAVADDANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SMT GANGAMMA W/O MANJUNATH D/O LATE DODAVADDANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT LAKIHATTI VILLAGE HAMLET OF NALLEKAMANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 123 PRESENTLY R/AT GANTHKALLUHATTI GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE ROLLA MANDAL MADAKASIRA TALUK Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH STATE …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BUDDANNA S/O LATE SIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SRI CHKKAVADDANNA S/O LATE SIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R1 AND R2 ARE REP BY THEIR SPA HOLDER SMT THAYAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 3. SMT KARIYAMMA W/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. SMT THALKERAMMA W/O PUJARISIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R1 TO R4 ARE R/AT LAKIHATTI VILLAGE HAMLET OF NALLEKAMANAHALLI VILLAGE MEDIGESHI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 123 5. SRI SHIVANNA S/O LT DDODAVADDANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 6. SMT KARIYAMMA D/O LT DODDAVADDANAN W/O CHITHAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 R5 AND R6 ARE R/AT GOVINDAPURA VILLAGE D GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE MADAKASIRA MANDAL AND TALUK SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH 515301 …RESPONDENTS THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.09.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.5031/2022 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.19/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI., PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Vivek S., learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Present second appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S.No.19/2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit in O.S.No.19/2017 which came to be filed for the relief for partition and separate possession in respect of following properties (hereinafter referred to as suit properties) which on contest, came to be decreed: Agricultural lands situated in Nallekanahalli, Medigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk. 1. Sy.No. 20/10 measuring 5 acre 3 guntas bounded on the East Land of Chithanna, Nagendrappa, Nagamma, West: Land bearing Sy. No. 20/9, North: Lands of Thayamma, Govaddinaganna and Galappa, South: Gomala Land. 2. Sy.No. 53/1 measuring 2 acre 3 guntas bounded on the East: Land of Venkatappa, Eranna and Kamanna, West: Land of Eranna and Thayamma, North: Land of Ranganna, South: Land of Chennamma. 3. Sy.No. 48/2 measuring 30 guntas bounded on the East Land of Maranna, Nagaraju and Girijamma, West Land of S. Eranna, North: Thalapurige Kaluve, South: Land bearing Sy. No. 49/4 and 50/4. 4. Sy.No. 49/4 measuring 5 guntas bounded on the East: Land bearing Sy. No. 48/2, West: Land of S. Eranna and North: Lands of S. Eranna, and, South: Land bearing Sy. No. 50/4. 5. Sy.No. 50/4 measuring 11 guntas bounded on the East Land bearing Sy. No. 48/2, West: Land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 bearing Sy. No. 50/3, North: Chikkanna's Land, South: Land of S. Eranna and Kerekaluve. 6. Sy.No. 47/3 measuring 17 guntas bounded on the East Land of Gaalappa, West: Land of S. Eranna and North Lands of Nagaraju and Kerekaluve, South: Land of S. Eranna. 7. Sy.No. 20/9 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas bounded on the East Land bearing Sy. No. 20/10, West: Land bearing Sy. No. 20/8 North: Lands of Thayamma, South: Gomala Land. 8. Sy.No. 40/3 measuring 27 guntas and Sy. No. 40/1 measuring 24 guntas forming a singale plot bounded on the East Road, West Land of Eranaganna North Lands of Girijamma, South: Land of Eranna. 9. Sy.No. 41/3 measuring 21 guntas bounded on the East: Road, West: Land of Girijamma, North : Thalapurige Kaluve Lands of Narayanareddy and Moporareddy, South: Land of Girijamma. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.5031/2022. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while considering the appeal, also considered the need for considering the additional evidence which has been placed on record before the First Appellate Court and in order to facilitate the parties to lead additional evidence, set aside - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 the order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court. 6. Validity of the said order of the First Appellate Court is called in question, in this appeal, on the following grounds: The First Appellate Court has committed an error in upsetting the well-reasoned Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court by remanding back the matter back to Trial Court for fresh disposal. The First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that there was no partition that took place in respect of the item No.1 and 2 properties and that Siddanna and Joganna were in joint possession of the said properties. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the Written Statement filed by the Respondents before the Trial Court, they had taken the contention that the partition affected between Siddana and Joganna was by oral means, however they have filed an additional document before the Appellate Court producing the Deed of Partition alleged to have been executed between Siddanna and Joganna which is quite contrary to the contentions taken by the Respondents in their Written Statement filed before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has committed an error in allowing the Application filed by the Respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure to produce additional documents without recording valid reasons to do so. Further, the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondents had - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 produced the said Partition deed before the Appellate Court when they could have produced the same before the Trial Court and especially when the period of trial went on for more than a period of 5 years. The Appellate Court has committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the Respondents have not produced relevant documents to show that the item No.3 to 9 properties were purchased by Siddanna in his individual capacity. Moreover, the Appellate Court has overlooked the fact that Siddanna had no other independent source of income from which he could've purchased the item No.3 to 9 properties. The Appellate Court has committed an error by overlooking the documents placed on record, where the name of Joganna is mentioned in column No.12 of RTC of item No.3,4 and 7 which establishes that the items No.3 to 9 properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus. The Appellate Court has committed an error in remanding the said case back to the Trial Court for considering the additional evidence placed on record by the Respondents. The scope of First Appellate Court to remand the matter in a case falls under Order 41 Rule 23(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will be only when findings are recorded to the effect that re trial is necessary. The First Appellate Court is not right in remanding the case before the trial Court for de nova trial, when the appellate Court itself has ample power to record additional evidence and mark the additional documents. The First Appellate Court has failed to follow the procedure under Order 41 Rule 28 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when it had decided to allow I.A.No.IV to lead additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 In terms of the provision of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the First Appellate Court is competent to formulate the points, to address the legal issues involved in the matter and also appreciate the evidentiary value of the documents, the remand of the matter to the Trial Court is not warranted. It has power to adjudicate these legal points. It was not necessary to remand the matter back to the Trial Court on legal aspects. Since the appeal is a continuous proceeding of the suit, First Appellate Court could have exercised its jurisdiction and address the legal issues regarding the document adduced by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by framing necessary points and then deciding the matter by one way or the other. However, the First Appellate Court has failed in discharging its duties to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it and rather chosen to remand the matter back to the Trial Court. The impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not maintainable either on Law or on facts and the same is liable to be set aside. The First Appellate Court had grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in the proper perspective and the same has resulted in miscarriage of Justice. Thus, viewed from any angle the Judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is clearly erroneous and same is liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the First Appellate Court mechanically allowed the application for consideration of the additional - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 evidence and remitted the matter to the Trial Court which is incorrect in law. 8. He would further contend that the First Appellate Court is the Court of Records and it had the mechanism of recording the additional evidence by itself and therefore, no grounds are made out under Order XLI Rule 23A for remitting the matter to the Trial Court and sought for admitting the appeal. 9. In the light o the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, the additional evidence in the form of documents to establish the previous partition is allowed by the First Appellate Court. 11. Therefore, since the first appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the earlier - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 partition is suppressed by the plaintiff, taking the additional evidence cannot be faulted with. 12. The next question that needs to be looked into in view of the argument put forth on behalf of the appellants is whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remitting the matter to the Trial Court instead of recording the additional evidence by itself. 13. In this regard, the First Appellate Court has clearly recorded a finding that if the First Appellate Court itself records the additional evidence and if it goes against the plaintiff, he will lose right of challenging the same. Therefore, in order to provide proper and suitable opportunity for the parties, remitting the matter to the Trial Court afresh for fresh adjudication was necessary. 14. Such a finding is in fact favourable to the appellants. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34404 MSA No. 201 of 2024 15. Therefore, this Court does find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the First Appellate Court. 16. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. ii. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31