- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.1 OF 2019 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. CHIKKANNA AGE: 65 YEARS S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH 2. RANGANNA AGE: 64 YEARS S/O LATE DODDARANGIAAH @ DODDAIAH DEAD BY LRS 2(A) MAHALAKSHMI AGE: 59 YEARS W/O LATE RANGANNA 2(B) YOGEESH S/O LATE RANGANNA AGE: 36 YEARS 2(C) RAVIKIRAN S/O LATE RANGANNA AGE: 34 YEARS ALL ARE R/O SIRA GATE VENKATESHAPURA – 572 102 TUMAKURU …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KALEEMULLAH SHERIFF, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 AND: 1. SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, BHEEMAKKA, W/O. LATE. SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA, AGE: 69 YEARS 2. RANGANATH DEAD BY LRS, MEENAKSHAMMA, AGE: 47 YEARS W/O LATE C RANGANATH 3. RAVIKIRAN R S/O LATE C RANGANATH AGE: 29 YEARS 4. NARAYAN S S/O LATE SURAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O VENKATESHAPPA, SIRA GATE – 572102 TUMKURU TOWN 5. THAMMAIAH S/O LATE. DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS, CHIKKAHANUMAKKA, AGE: 71 YEARS, W/O LATE THAMMAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 6. YOGISH S/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGE: 47 YEARS 7. DAKSHAYANAMMA D/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGE: 51 YEARS 8. YASHODHAMMA D/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGE: 49 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE R/O KUNDUR, DEVARAYAPATNA, BELAGUMBA POST, TUMKURU – 572 101 9. BANADA RANGAPPA S/O LATE DODDARANGAIAH @ DODDAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS, NIRMALA, AGE: 51 YEARS, W/O SANJEEVAIAH, C/O. HANUMANTHAPPAIAH, DURGADAHALLI, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST 10. KAMALAMMA W/O. SREENIVASAIAH, AGE: 53 YEARS D/O. BANDARANGAPPA, R/O. GURUVINIAHANA PALYA, SIRA GATE -572102 TUMAKURU TOWN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 11. R. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O RANGAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS, JAYAMMA, W/O LATE ARUVANNA, AGE: 77 YEARS, R/O. SIRA GATE -572102, TUMAKURU 12. RAMANAGOWDA S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH, AGE: 69 YEARS R/O. VENKATESHPURA, TUMAKURU -572101 13. SUMITHRAMMA W/O LINGAPPA, AGE: 67 YEARS R/O. BADVANAHALLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-572132 14. R. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGE: 68 YEARS SUB INSPECTOR MADHUGIRI – 572 132 TUMAKURU DIST 15. CHELUVARAJAMMA W/O SADASHIVAIHA, AGE: 63 YEARS R/O. I D HALLI, BESIDE BASAVANAGUDI, MADHUGIRI – 572 132, TUMKUR DIST - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 16. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE. RANGASWAMAIAH, AGE: 61 YEARS BY THE SIDE OF GARDEN, TUMAKURU – 572 101 17. SUMANGALAMMA W/O SANJEEVAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS R/O. NO.58, 1ST MAIN ROAD RAJAMAHAL GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 010 18. VIJAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O HARIDAS, DODDAKADATATHUR AGE: 57 YEARS R/O. MALUR - 563 130 KOLAR DIST …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, R9 & R10; SRI R V JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8; SMT. SOWMYA R, ADVOCATE FOR R14 & R16; NOTICE TO R5, R11, R12, R15, R17 & R18 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.400/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 9 and 10 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8. 2. This appeal is filed against the order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.400/2009. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court erred in holding the partition as per the settlement deed effected by the father Doddarangaiah as per the document marked at Ex.D3 dated 20.05.1965 as legal and binding on the parties to the suit and also answered the Point No.2 as affirmative holding that the Trial Court erred in partly dismissing the suit and partly decreeing the suit and hence, the judgment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 and decree of the Trial Court requires interference and answered Point No.4 as affirmative holding that the appellant has made out a grounds to allow an application for impleading respondent No.6 and in respect of Point No.5 that what shares each of the parties to the suit are entitled to and in which of the suit properties, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that unless the daughters are made as parties to the suit, the matter requires to be remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to implead all the daughters/ deceased daughter’s heirs of the propositous and to consider the entitlement of shares of each of the parties to the suit in all the suit schedule properties, in the light of observations made while answering the Point Nos.4 and 5 and then to dispose of the matter strictly in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of impleadment to the parties, filing of written statement to the newly impleaded defendants and to lead evidence if any, at the instance of the newly impleaded defendants and all these proceedings - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 to be completed within a further period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court while reminding the matter ought not to have touched upon the issue of settlement deed is concerned. The counsel appearing to the respective respondents also vehemently contended that when the daughters have not been made as parties and when the application is also allowed i.e., I.A.No.8 and directed to implead the legal heirs of deceased daughter, they also to be made as party and specific direction was given. The counsel would vehemently contend that instead of remanding the matter it was only to decide the share and also the issue of entitlement, hence, the First Appellate Court ought not to have remanded the same. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also would vehemently contend that matter ought to have been dealt by the First Appellate Court itself and only the issue of for non-inclusion of the daughters is before the First Appellate Court and regarding finding of the Trial Court in granting the relief partly, ought to have been considered and hence, answering of the Point Nos.1 to 3 by the First Appellate Court required to be set aside and the matter has to be considered afresh by the First Appellate Court itself since, the suit is of the year 1989 and almost 36 years has been elapsed and even appeal is also of the year 2009 and almost 16 years has been elapsed. Hence, instead of remanding the same to the Trial Court taking note of the fact that the suit of the year 1989 and appeal is of the year 2009, First Appellate Court would have been exercised the appellate powers by considering the said issue giving an opportunity to the parties in the very same Court and not had the conscious about the same while remanding the matter. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.400/2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Court to decide the issue involved between the parties afresh in view of the observations made by this court. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 11.08.2025 without expecting any notice. The First Appellate Court already directed to dispose of the matter within six months and the same is not altered and directed to dispose of the same within six - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26470 MSA No. 1 of 2019 months from 11.08.2025 by the First Appellate Court itself. The First Appellate Court while considering the matter on merits shall not be influenced by the earlier observation made in the appeal and consider the matter afresh. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN