- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2014 (POS) BETWEEN: 1. DODDAMARIYAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AND ADOPTED SON OF CHOWDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) RAMAMMA, S/O LATE DODDAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, (SINCE DIED ON 01-08-2013) ALL HER LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS LRS 1(B) AND 1(C) 1(b) RAMESH, S/O LATE DODDA MARIYAPPA DEAD BY LRS 1(b)(a) SMT SUJATHA, W/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 1(b)(b) KUM RAKSHITHA, D/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, 1(b)(c) KUM NANDHITHA, D/O LATE RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, [1(b)(b) AND 1(b)(c) ARE MINORS, REPT. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 SMT SUJATHA, [1(b)(b) TO 1(b)(c) ARE ALL RESIDING AT CHOWDAIAHNA DODDI, JAKKANAHALLI POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 1(c) RUDRAIAH S/O LATE DODDA MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. PAPANNA, S/O LATE DODDA MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. KAGGALLAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, 3(a) CHOWDEGOWDA, S/O LATE KAGGALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 3(b) DODDEGOWDA S/O LATE KAGGALLAIAH, DEAD BY LRS 3(b)(a) SMT KEMPARAJAMMA, W/O LATE DODDAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3(b)(b) SMT LALITHA, D/O LATE DODDAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3(b)(c) SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE DODDAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 3(b)(d) SMT HEMALATHA, D/O LATE DODDAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3(b)(a) TO 3(b)(d) ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.3/1-2, 6TH MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. 3(c) KAGGALLAIAH @ PUTTAIAH, S/O LATE KAGGALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 3(d) RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O LATE KAGGALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. HOTAPPA, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 4(a) CHOWDAIAH, S/O LATE HOTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4(b) DODDAIAH, S/O LATE HOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 4(c) SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE HOTAPPA, 4(d) RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE HOTAPPA, 4(e) MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 S/O LATE HOTAPPA, 5. D.CHOWDAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHOWDAIAHNA DODDI JAKKANAHALLI POST, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 159, RAMANAGARA DIST. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI A ANIL KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR A1(c), A3 (a, c, d), A4 (a to d) & A5; A1(b)(b) & A1(b)(c) ARE MINORS REP. BY A1(b)(a) A1(b)(a) - SERVED, A1(a), A2, A3(b)(a) to 3(b)(d) AND A4(e) - APPEAL STOOD DISMISSED V.C.O. DT. 09.07.2024) AND: 1. NAGAIAH, S/O SANNA DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS R(1)(a) RENUKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAIAH, R(1)(b) VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAIAH, R(1)(c) CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGAIAH, R(1)(d) SHOBHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAIAH, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 R(1)(e) SUSHILAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAIAH, R(1)(f) SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE NAGAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDING ATCHOWDAIAHNADODDI, JAKKANAHALLI POST, KYLANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159 (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.07.2025) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M C JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(f) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.8.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.13/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.11.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.122/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CILVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & ADDL. JMFC., RAMANAGARAM. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This Second Appeal was admitted on 14.08.2025 to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in not considering the application for production of additional documents, despite the mandate to consider the said application for production of additional documents?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the suit is one for possession based on the title and title deed was produced before the First Appellate Court as additional document. First Appellate Court did not consider the said application and the appeal is dismissed. 3. Learned counsel would submit that First Appellate Court was under obligation to consider the application on merit and should have passed the judgment on merit along with the application for production of additional document. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the suit is one for possession without relief of declaration, as such the suit is not maintainable and there is no justification to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court. 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 6. What was sought to be produced before the First Appellate Court by way of additional evidence is the sale - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 deed in favour of the plaintiff's grandfather. If the sale deed is established in accordance with law, then probably it establishes plaintiff's title. 7. This being the position, First Appellate Court ought to have considered the application for production of additional document in the manner known to law. Dismissing the appeal without making any reference to the said application, is erroneous and the appeal could not have been decided without passing orders on the said application which is required to be heard along with the merits of the appeal. 8. In every case seeking possession, declaration of title is not necessary. Whether the suit for possession without appropriate relief of declaration of title is maintainable or not is also a question which depends on facts of each case and there is no universal proposition that every suit for possession must have the declaratory relief. Whether in the present case the plaintiff is required to claim the relief of declaration is to be considered by the Appellate Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 9. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court have to be set-aside and the matter has to be remitted to First Appellate Court. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 07.08.2013 in R.A. No.13/2007 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM., Ramanagara are set-aside. (iii) First Appellate Court shall consider the application for production of additional evidence on merits along with the merits of the appeal. (iv) If the Court finds that the application needs to be allowed (after hearing the parties on the merits of the appeal) the Court shall permit the parties to lead oral evidence if they intend to. (v) If the Appellate Court permits production of additional documents sought by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31732 RSA No. 19 of 2014 appellant, he shall also permit the respondent to produce such evidence if any. (vi) Thereafter, First Appellate Court shall decide the case in accordance with law. (vii) It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (viii) The parties shall appear before First Appellate Court on 19.09.2025 without any further notice. (ix) Registry to send the records to First Appellate Court forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28