- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2011 (MON) BETWEEN: SRI P.S. SRIPADA RAO SON OF LATE P. CHIDAMABARAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SIDDANAKAI VILLAGE, SASARAVALLI POST SAGAR TALUK- 577 401 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. V. PRAKASH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI K R ANANTHAPADMANABHA UDUPA @ A P UDUPA SON OF K A RANGAPPA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI K R SRINATHA UDUPA SON OF K A RANGAPPA UDUPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 2(a) ROHINI K.L., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, K.R. SRINATHA UDUPA, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 2(b) SHARASCHANDRA K.S., AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.R. SRINATHA UDUPA 2(c) K.S. SHRAVYA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, D/O. K.R. SRINATHA UDUPA, RESPT.NO.2(C) IS A MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER RESPT. NO.2(a) ROHINI K.L. THE RESPONDENT 2 (a) TO 2(c) ARE RESIDING AT HAREGODLU VILLAGE, KARGADI VILLAGE, HANIYA POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. M/S SAMRAT ADIKE MANDI NO.2, APMC YARD, SAGAR REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY IS MANAGING PARTNER SRI H M RAVIKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA GOWDA 4. SRI H M RAVIKUMAR M/S SAMRAT ADIKE MANDI S/O MALLAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS PARTNER, M/S SAMRAT ADIKE MANDI APMC YARD, SAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 5. T S VEERAPPAIAH S/O T.S. SIDDAVEERAPPA GOWDA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O BEDUR VILLAGE, KALMANE POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 6. SMT A L. SULOCHANA W/O LATE A V LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O AMACHI, SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 7. SRI G M BALACHANDRA S/O G MURIGEPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O GORAGODU VILLAGE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 8. SRI CHIDAMBARA BHATTA S/O MAHABALA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/O UDUCHE HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 9. SRI SRIPADARAMAIAH HEGDE S/O RAMAIAH HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O KARALAKAI SIDDAPURA TALUK NORTH CANARA DISTRICT. 10. SRI G H DATTATREYA S/O G S HARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O GADIKATTE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 11. SRI M K CHIDANANDA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O KABBACHALU SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 12. SRI T N SHEKARAPPA GOWDA S/O T.S. NAGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O TALANERI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 13. SRI B J SATEESH S/O B J SRIPADA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O KEREKOPPA NISARANI POST, ULAVI HOBLI, SORAB TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT 14. SRI B J RAVINDRA S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O KEREKOPPA NISARANI POST, ULAVI HOBLI SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 15. SMT MALATHI K MURTHY W/O KRISHNA MURTHY - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O ACHARKERI SUBHASH NAGAR SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 16. SRI SRINIVASA UDUPA S/O LATE K A RANGAPPA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O KARAGADI, HANIYA POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 17. SRI H S NANJUNDAPPA S/O H N.SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O HILAKUNJI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 18. SMT NEELAMMA W/O LATE INDUDHARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 19. SRI GURUBASAPPA W/O LATE INDUDHARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 20. KUM MANJULA D/O LATE INDUDHARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 21. KUM ARPITHA D/O LATE INDUDHARA SHETTY - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESONDENTS NO.18 TO 21 ARE R/O BILEKAL VILLAGE SAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 22. SMT SAVITHA W/O OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O SURAHONNE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 23. KUM JYOTHI D/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O KOURI ROAD NEXT TO SRI GURUPPA'S HOUSE TOGARSI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 24. KUM USHA D/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O KOURI ROAD NEXT TO SRI GURUPPA'S HOUSE TOGARSI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 25. SRI K G KRISHNAPPA S/O GANAPAYYA AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/O KOPPALU VILLAGE NISARANI POST - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 SORAB TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT 26. SRI A L VENKATESH S/O LATE A LAXMINARAYA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O AMACHI VILLAGE SORAB TALYUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-2(A & B) & R-16; R-2(C) - MINOR REP.BY R-2(A); SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-13; V/O.DT.24.01.2017, THE APPEAL AGAINST R-2 & R-5 DISMISSED AS ABATED; R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9, R-10, R-12, R-14, R-15, R-17, R-18, R-19, R-23, R-24, R-26 ARE SERVED; V/O.DT.06.08.2018, NOTICE TO R-7 & R-22 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O.DT. 28.11.2019, NOTICE TO R-11, R-20 AND R-21 IS DISPENSED WITH] *** THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED17.01.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.107/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC.,SAGAR. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. Though this appeal is listed for Admission, with the consent of both counsel, the appeal is taken-up for final hearing, as the appeal is of the year 2011. 3. The Second Appeal is arising from a divergent finding in a suit for recovery of money. The suit, initially, was decreed against all defendants No.1 to 24, passing a decree for payment of `90,830/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, two of the Legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.14, i.e. D-14(1)-K.R. Ananthapadmanabha Udupa and D-14(2) - K.R.Srinatha Udupa filed the appeal in R.A.No.37/2008. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 5. Defendants No.1 to 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, deceased defendant No.14, 14(i), 14(ii),14(iii), 16 to 19 and 24 appeared through their counsel; 6. Defendants No.8, 13, 15 and 20 to 23 remained ex-parte. 7. Defendants No.1, 2, 11, 14 and 24 filed separate written statements. The other defendants did not file their written statements. 8. The appeal is allowed and suit is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that there was no plea relating to limitation in the original suit. There was no ground relating to limitation even in the first appeal. Without the issue of limitation being raised by the appellants, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the contention relating to limitation can be considered notwithstanding that there is no plea in the written statement or the appeal memo in view of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'Act of 1963'). 11. Considering the rival submissions, the following two substantial questions of law are framed: (i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit on limitation in the absence of a specific plea in the written statement and without an issue being framed before the Trial Court? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ plaintiff would submit that the suit is filed on 27.08.2003 and according to the plaintiff, the last transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1/partnership firm was on 29.08.2000 and the Account maintained in respect of the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1/ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 partnership firm was mutual and reciprocable account which is governed under Article 1 of the Act of 1963. Thus, he would contend that the suit filed is in-time. 13. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that the last transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1/partnership firm, as recorded by the First Appellate Court was on 31.03.2000, as such, the suit filed on 27.08.2003 is beyond three years and barred by limitation. 14. In the alternative, he would submit that defendant No.14, according to the plaintiff, was the partner of defendant No.1/partnership firm. However, no materials are placed to show that defendant No.14 was a partner when the transaction took place between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and it is further submitted that there was a registered Partition Deed between defendant No.14 and his children in the year 1993 and as such the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.14 could not be made liable. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 15. From the records, it is noticed that the plaintiff used to sell Arecanut to first defendant/partnership firm and first defendant/partnership firm used to make payment to the plaintiff. The records would further indicate that sometimes, the amount used to be outstanding in the name of the plaintiff and sometimes in the name of first defendant/partnership firm. This being the position, the Account would be a mutual and reciprocal Account and governed by Article 1 of the Act of 1963. 16. Under the said Article, the limitation to file a suit is three years and limitation starts to run from the close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the Account. The records would indicate that the last entry was on 29.08.2000 and earlier to that, the entry was in June 2000. This being the position, the suit filed is in-time. 17. Now, the question is, whether there can be a decree against defendant No.14, who, according to defendant No.14, was not the partner of first - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 defendant/partnership firm. First defendant did not produce any document relating to partnership. 18. The plaintiff has also not produced any document relating to partnership. However, defendant No.14 has contested the suit and denied the claim that he is the partner of defendant No.1/partnership firm. Since the plaintiff has not produced the record to show that defendant No.14 was the partner of defendant No.1/partnership firm, the suit could not have been decreed against defendant No.14. Since defendant No.14 died during the pendency of the suit, the legal representatives were brought on record and nothing is placed on record to show that the legal representatives of defendant No.14 inherited the liability of defendant No.14 as the partner of defendant No.1/partnership firm. Hence, there cannot be a decree against the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.14. 19. Since this Court has come to the conclusion that the suit is in-time, the appeal has to be allowed in part, passing a decree in favour of the rest of the respondents - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25440 RSA No. 318 of 2011 who have not disputed their status as the partners of defendant No.1/partnership firm and the suit against the legal representatives of defendant No.14 has to be dismissed. 20. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 in R.A.No.37/2008, on the file of the Additional District Judge, at Shimoga are set aside in part. (iii) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against all the defendants in terms of the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2010 passed by First Appellate Court except the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.14. (iv) Appellants are entitled to costs throughout. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29