- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8733 MSA No. 100074 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100074 OF 2019 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. GOUDRA CHANNABASAPPA S/O SIDRAMAPPA, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALAVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. 2. GOUDRA SIDRAMAPPA S/O SIDRAMAPPA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALAVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. 3. GOUDRA MARULASIDDAPPA S/O SIDDRAMAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALAVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOUDRA SIDRAMANA GOUDA @ SIDDRAMESHA S/O GOUDRA BASAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. 2. GOUDRA SIDDAPPA S/O GOUDRA BASAPPA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. 3. GOUDRA CHANNABASAPPA S/O GOUDRA BASAPPA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8733 MSA No. 100074 of 2019 4. GOUDRA SIDRAMAKKA W/O SIDRAMAPPA D/O GOUDRA BASAPPA, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. 5. BELLANNI CHANNABASAPPA S/O MARULASIDDAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALVADA VILLAGE, TAL: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4; R5-SERVED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 43 RULE 1 (U) READ WITH SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 22.02.2019 PASSED IN R.A. NO.5066/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, SITTING AT HOSAPETE, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 07.10.2015 PASSED IN O.S. NO.94/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUDLIGI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by plaintiffs No.1 to 3 challenging the order dated 22.02.2019 passed in R.A.No.5066/2015, on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), thereby the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2015 passed in O.S.No.94/2013, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi is set aside and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8733 MSA No. 100074 of 2019 remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration as per recasted issues in the impugned order. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. The trial Court has decreed the suit, thereby granted share to the plaintiffs by holding that the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties and accepting the genealogies shown by the plaintiffs. 3. Being aggrieved by it, the defendants have preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court has found that the issues framed are not in accordance with pleadings and certain necessary issues ought to have been framed, but not framed. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has recasted issues itself and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration to decide the case on recasted issues based on the evidence adduced already and also by giving liberty - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8733 MSA No. 100074 of 2019 to adduce fresh evidence on recasted issues. This order of remand is challenged in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reason for remand is that issues were not framed properly in the suit. But the recasted issues by the appellate Court were already framed by the trial Court. Hence, has made a comparison with the original issue framed in the suit and recasted issue in the appeal. 5. Upon considering these two aspects of original issues and recasted issues, there was no issue framed by the trial Court in the suit on the aspect that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are claiming their right of possession through registered Will and another one is that whether defendant No.5 is bonafide purchaser of item Nos.9 and 10 of suit schedule properties. On these two aspects, there were no issues originally framed in the suit. Therefore, though the recasted issues are appearing to be repeated, but the recasted issues are specific in nature and furthermore, on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8733 MSA No. 100074 of 2019 the pleadings of the defendants No.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 as above stated, there are no issues on two aspects above stated. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court found deems fit to frame issues and accordingly, had framed recasted issues. There is no error found in the order passed by the First Appellate Court. At the most, it is remanded to decide the suit on the recasted issues by giving liberty to both the parties to lead additional evidence, if they so desired. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31