- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1213 OF 2015 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1493 OF 2015 IN RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. MUDDAIAH SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 1(b). SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 1(c). SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 1(d). SRI. MOHAN S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 1(e). SRI. MADHU KUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. APPELLANTS 1(a) TO 1(e) ARE R/AT NO.3445, TROOPLANE, R.C. CHURCH STREET, RAMANAGAR TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 2. CHAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. 2(a). SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2(b). SMT. MANJULA C. D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, W/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2(c). SMT. SHYLAJA D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2(d). VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2(e). RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2(f). SHASHI KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. APPELLANTS 2(a) TO 2(f) ARE R/AT NO.3443, TROOPLANE R.C. CHURCH ROAD RAMANAGARA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BOMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 1(b). SMT. VIJAYAKUMARI W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 1(c). B. SANJAY S/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. RESPONDENTS1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/AT C/O SHIVANNA S/O LATE DASAPPA, JANATHA COLONY, WARD NO.24, 2ND CROSS, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 1(d). SMT. MANI W/O SHIVANNA, D/O LATE BOMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.441/A, ARKESHWARA COLONY, 4TH CROSS, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 1(e). SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE BOMMAIAH, HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 1(f). SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE BOMMAIAH HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 1(g). RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 RESPONDENTS NO.1(e) TO 1(g) ARE R/AT C/O SHIVANNA, S/O LATE DASAPPA, JANATHA COLONY, WARD NO.24, 2ND CROSS, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE JOGI @ JOGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT IJOOR, BEHIND SHAH TALKIES, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SHEKARA S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 5. SRI. VYRAMUDI S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.471, 4TH CROSS ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK. 6. SRI. BHAGAVAN DAS S/O CHELUVAIAH AND LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 7. SMT. PAVITHRA D/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 8. SMT. PALLAVI D/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS. 9. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 10. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 11. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA, D/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.471, 4TH CROSS, ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK. 12. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.471, 4TH CROSS, ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK. 13. SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 14. SRI. SHANKAR S/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 15. SRI. RAJU S/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 16. SMT. PRATHIMA RANI AGE: MAJOR, W/O JAYARAM, D/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR. RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 16 ARE R/AT NO.415, II CROSS, ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(g), R4 AND R12 TO R15; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R3, R5 TO R11 AND R16 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 07.11.2016) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12THDECEMBER, 2014 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.127 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19TH JULY, 2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.45 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAMANAGARA. IN RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. MUDDAIAH SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 1(b). SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 1(c). SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1(d). SRI. MOHAN S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 1(e). SRI. MADHU KUMAR S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(e) ARE R/AT NO.3445 TROOPLANE, R.C. CHURCH STREET RAMANAGAR TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. CHAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 2(a). SMT. LAXMAMMA W/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2(b). SMT. MANJULA C. D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, W/O MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 2(c). SMT. SHYLAJA D/O LATE CHAMAIAH, W/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 2(d). VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 2(e). RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 2(f). SHASHI KUMAR S/O LATE CHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.2(a) TO 2(f) ARE R/AT NO.3445, TROOPLANE CHURCH STREET RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT -562 159. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BOMMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SMT. SHARADHAMMA W/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 1(b). SMT. VIJAYAKUMARI W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 1(c). B. SANJAY S/O LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1(a) TO 1(c) ARE R/AT C/O SHIVANNA, JANATHA COLONY WARD NO.24, 2ND CROSS RAMANAGAR TOWN RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. 1(d). SMT. MANI W/O SHIVANNA R/AT NO.441/A, ARKESHWARA COLONY - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 4TH CROSS, RAMANAGAR TOWN RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. 1(e). SMT. GEETHA HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 1(f). SMT. ROOPA D/O LATE BOMMAIAH HUSBAND NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTS AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 1(g). RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1(e) TO 1(g) ARE R/AT W/O LATE DASAPPA C/O SHIVANNA JANATHA COLONY WARD NO.24, 2ND CROSS RAMANAGAR TOWN RAMANAGAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE JOGI @ JOGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT IJOOR, BEHIND SHAAN TALKIES RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SRI. SHEKARA S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 5. SRI. VYRAMUDI S/O LATE LINGAIAH AND AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6. SRI BHAGVAN DAS S/O CHELUVAIAH AND LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 7. PAVITHRA D/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 8. PALLAVI D/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS 9. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S/O BHAGAVAN DAS & LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 10. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 11. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 11 ARE R/AT NO.471, 4TH CROSS ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA RAMANAGARA TOWN AND TALUK. 12. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.471, 4TH CROSS ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN AND TALUK. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 13. SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 14. SRI. SHANKAR S/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 15. RAJU S/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 16. SMT. PRATHIMA RANI AGED: MAJOR, W/O JAYARAM, D/O LATE RAJU @ RAJASHEKAR. RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 16 ARE R/AT NO.415, 2ND CROSS, ARKESHWARA (COLONY) NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. MOHANKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) to R1(g), R4 AND R13; NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 TO R12, AND R14 TO R16 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12TH DECEMBER, 2014 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.129 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., RAMANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19TH JULY, 2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.45 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., RAMANAGARA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FUTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT Regular Second Appeal No.1213 of 2015 is filed by the defendants 2 and 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.127 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Ramanagara (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Ramangara (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. 2. Regular Second Appeal No.1493 of 2015 is filed by the defendants 2 and 3, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.129 of 2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Trial Court, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No.1 is wife of late Raju @ Rajashekar and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the plaintiff No.1 and late Raju @ Rajashekar. The suit schedule properties are belonged to one Jogi @ Jogaiah, father of late Raju @ Rajashekar. It is further stated that the defendants 1 to 4 and the husband of the plaintiff No.1 constitute Hindu Joint Family and as the said Jogi @ Jogaiah died intestate, the plaintiffs being grandchildren are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. 4. It is also stated in the plaint that the defendant No.2 changed the Khata in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties into his name and item No.2 in the name of the defendant No.3 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and there is no partition in the family of the plaintiffs and defendants and therefore, the plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.45 of 2006 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 5. After service of the notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance and supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendants 2 and 3 filed separate written statement disputing the relationship of the plaintiffs with late Raju @ Rajashekar and further contended that the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the defendants 2 and 3. It is also stated that the father of the defendants 2 and 3 i.e., Jogi @ Jogaiah had executed Will dated 09th December, 1986 in favour of the defendant No.3 and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendants 5 and 6 were impleaded and supported the case of the plaintiffs. 7. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the Trial Court formulated issues for its consideration. 8. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 13 documents as Exhibits P1 to P13. On the other hand, defendants examined 5 witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got marked 33 documents as Exhibits D1 to D33. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2013, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 preferred Regular Appeal No.127 of 2013 and plaintiffs preferred Regular Appeal No.129 of 2013. The said appeals were contested by the parties. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2014, allowed the appeals, consequently, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.45 of 2006 and as such, suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed in-part. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 2 and 3 preferred these two appeals. 10. This Court, by order dated 24th January, 2019, admitted the appeals to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1) Having regard to plaintiff No.1 not examining herself regarding her marital relationship with Raju @ Rajashekar, the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs are the wife and children of said Raju @ Rajashekar? - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 2) In view of the admission of the defendant No.1 in O.S. No.43/2009 filed by him against defendant No.2 that there was earlier partition between them in the joint family, the finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs and defendants constituted joint family is sustainable in law? 3) Whether the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is violative of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. in view of non-consideration of the findings of the Trial Court that the suit is bad for non inclusion of all joint family parties? 11. Heard Sri. Shivaramu H.C., learned counsel appearing for appellants; Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1(a) to 1(g), respondents 4 and 12 to 15 in RSA No.1213/2015 and respondents 1(a) to 1(g) and respondents 4 and 13 in RSA No.1493/2015. 12. Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the Trial Court, after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs have failed to prove their relationship with the deceased Raju @ Rajashekara and that apart, the plaintiff No.1 claims to be the wife of the said Raju @ Rajashekar, did not step into witness box to prove her relationship with the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 deceased Raju @ Rajashekar. He further submitted that the defendant No.1 preferred Original Suit No.43 of 2003 against the defendant No.2 in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and the said suit came to be dismissed as per judgment and decree produced at Exhibits 'D29' and 'D30' and therefore, the present suit preferred by the plaintiffs is to counter blast in respect of suit schedule properties, belonging to defendants 2 and 3. 13. It is also argued by Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the partition has been effected between the sons of late Jogi @ Jogaiah earlier and same has been acted upon and therefore, the First Appellate Court committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for appellants drew the attention of the Court to the averments made in the plaint and the evidence of PW1 and contended that, nothing is stated about the date on which the said Raju @ Rajashekar died and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the First Appellate - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 Court. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for appellants that the First Appellate Court, without re- appreciating the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed the impugned judgment and further the entire reasoning of the First Appellate Court is based on the documents which have not been proved by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 15. Per contra, Sri. H. Mohankumar, appearing for respondents 1(a) to 1(g), respondents 4 and 12 to 15 in RSA No.1213/2015 and respondents 1(a) to 1(g) and respondents 4 and 13 in RSA No.1493/2015 argued that the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, particularly with regard to the Election Identity Cards (Exhibit P8 to P10), Copy of Bank Passbook (Exhibit P11) and the School Certificate (Exhibit P12) and S.S.L.C. Marks card (Exhibit P13), rightly interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 16. It is also contended by Sri. H. Mohankumar, learned counsel that the plaintiffs demonstrate with regard to the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 relationship of the plaintiff No.1 with late Raju @ Rajashekar by producing the relevant documents and in this regard, defendants 1, 4 and 5 have supported the case of the plaintiffs and the said aspect of matter was rightly considered by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs and same was rightly interfered with by the First Appellate Court. 17. Lastly, by referring the Exhibit D29, Sri. H. Mohankumar, learned counsel contended that the defendants 2 and 3 in the present case have admitted the relationship of the plaintiffs with late Raju @ Rajashiekar and therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be confirmed in these appeals. 18. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties except the plaintiffs in the suit. The genealogical tree of the children of Jogi @ Jogaiah shows as under: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 19. Perusal of the aforementioned genealogical tree would indicate that the original propositus Jogi @ Jogaiah and his wife Siddamma died leaving behind 7 children namely, defendants 1 to 6 and late Raju @ Rajashekar. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, late Raju @ Rajashekar married plaintiff No.1 and in their wedlock plaintiffs 2 to 4 born. It is the case of the defendants 2 and 3 that, late Raju @ Rajashekar died as bachelor and there is no relationship between the plaintiffs and late Raju @ Rajashekar. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants have taken plea in the written statement about the oral partition said to have been made amongst the sons of late Jogi @ Jogaiah. In this regard, though the said aspect was countered by the defendant No.1 and defendants 4 to 6, on perusal of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the defendant No.2 has failed to prove the Will dated 09th December, 1986 said to have been executed by the said Jogi @ eÉÆÃUÀAiÀÄå (¥Ëw) ¹zÀݪÀÄä (¥Ëw) ¨ÉƪÀÄäAiÀÄå (D1) ªÀÄÄzÀÝAiÀÄå (D2) CPÀ̪ÀÄä (D5) ZÁªÀÄAiÀÄå (D3) ²æäªÁ¸À (D4) gÁzsÀªÀÄä (D6) gÁdÄ (¥ÀªÀw) - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 Jogaiah, father of the defendant No.2. Issue Nos.7 and 8 have been answered against the defendant No.2 and same has reached finality and the said finding has not been questioned by the defendant No.2 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. It is also pertinent to mention here that the defendant No.1 preferred Regular Appeal No.127 of 2013 against the judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.45 of 2006. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Trial Court on the issues, the same would indicate that, none of the issue has been answered against the defendant No.1. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: "96. Appeal from original decree.—(1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. (2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 (3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties. (4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject- matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees." 21. On careful consideration of the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that the defendant No.1 is not an aggrieved party against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER vs. RAVIKUMAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 4038. Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 14 to 21 held as under: 14. In the backdrop of above facts, the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the appellants held the locus to question the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and whether the High Court was justified in rejecting their leave to appeal. 15. Section 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for preferring an appeal from any original decree or from decree in appeal respectively. The aforesaid provisions do not enumerate the categories of - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 persons who can file an appeal. However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the Court that he falls with the category of aggrieved persons. It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affects a person who is not party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court. Reference be made to the observation of this Court in Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha Vs. Golcha Properties Private Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 573:- "3…It is well settled that a person who is not a party to the suit may prefer an appeal with the leave of the Appellate Court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected by the Judgment. 16. This Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amar Singh & Anr. (1974) 2 SCC 70 while dealing with the maintainability of appeal by a person who is not party to a suit has observed thus :- "83…Firstly, there is a catena of authorities which, following the dictum of Lindley, L.J., in re Securities Insurance Co., [(1894) 2 Ch 410] have laid down the rule that a person who is not a party to a decree or order may with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or is aggrieved by it or is prejudicially affected by it." 17. In Baldev Singh Vs. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Ors (2003) 1 SCC 3.4, this Court held that an appeal - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, would be maintainable only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. While dealing with the concept of person aggrieved, it was observed in paragraph 15 as under:- ''15… A person aggrieved to file an appeal must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned." 18. In A. Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P. and Anr. (2011) 7 SCC 616, this Court held as under:- "25… The expression 'aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined that the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the complainants interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by the complainant." 19. The expression 'person aggrieved' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized (vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji Vs. Home Insurance Co. of New York (1974) 2 SCC 387 and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 592). - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 20. In Srimathi K. Ponnalagu Ammani Vs. The State Of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Revenue Department, Madras and Ors. 66 Law Weekly 136, this Court laid down the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment passed in such proceedings in following words:- "Now, what is the test to find out when it would be proper to grant leave to appeal to a person not a party to a proceeding against the decree or judgment in such proceedings? We think it would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment. We think that ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings." 21. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion that appellants can neither be said to be aggrieved persons nor bound by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in any manner. The relief claimed in the suit was cancellation of agreement to sell. On the other hand, the sale deeds which were the basis of the claim of the appellants were executed on the basis of General Power of Attorney, and had nothing to do with the agreement to sell which was subject matter of suit. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is in no sense - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 a judgment in rem and it is binding only as between the plaintiffs and defendants of the suit, and not upon the appellants." 22. Perusal of the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (supra) would indicate that the expression 'aggrieved person' does include a person who suffers from the judgment and decree. It is also to be noted that, in the present case, none of the issues of the Trial Court is adjudicated against the defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the defendant No.1 ought not to have preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the First Appellate Court and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires to be confirmed. 23. Nextly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 claims to be the wife of Raju @ Rajashekar and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are children of Plaintiff No.1. I have given my anxious consideration to the averments made in the plaint wherein, the plaintiffs have stated that, late Raju @ Rajashekar was residing with them and the plaintiff No.1 and late Raju @ - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 Rajashekar living as husband and wife. It is not specifically forthcoming from the pleadings on record particularly in plaint that, when late Raju @ Rajashekar died and who performed his obsequies. Even at the time of arguments before this Court, question was posed to the learned counsel representing the respondents about the death of Raju @ Rajashekar, however, nothing is produced or answered to the Court query with regard to the date of death of Raju @ Rajashekar. If the plaintiff No.1 claims to be the wife of deceased Raju @ Rajashekar and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 claims to be the children of late Raju @ Rajashekar, nothing has prevented them from producing the relevant documents with regard to death of Raju @ Rajashekar provided plaintiffs and late Raju @ Rajashekar residing together. That apart, the plaintiff No.1 claims to be the wife of Raju @ Rajashekar. Indisputably plaintiff No.1 did not entered the witness box. Hence, it is well established principle in law that, a party who is having a knowledge about the issue in controversy, a star witness in the suit, has to prove the relationship with the deceased. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR vs. MOHAMED HAJI LATIF - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413. Paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as under. "5. On behalf of the appellant reference was made to the Area Book, Ex. 66 of the year 1890. The entry shows the name of Laxmibai widow of Govind Gopal Ketkar under the heading “bl eps ukao” (name of the person). Exhibit 67 is the entry from the Phalani Book for the year 1897 and shows the land as “Kilyacha Dongar” and under the column “bl eps ukao” is shown the name of Laxmibai widow of Govind Gopal. Exhibit 68 is of the same year from the revision Phalani containing similar entry with the map attached. In Exhibit 70 the name of Laxmibai is shown as “Khatedar” for the year 1906. In the remarks column there is an entry “one built well, one pakka built masjid, one Dargah, one tomb”. Exhibit 71 is an entry for the year 1915 from Akar Phod Patrak and in the column of “Kabjedar” the name of Rukminibai Hari appears with regard to Plot 134. Thereafter, in the record of rights for the year 1913, Exhibit. 76, the name of the predecessor of the appellant is shown. On the basis of these entries it was submitted by Mr Gokhale that the ownership of the Plot was with the appellant and not with the Dargah. But there are important circumstances in this case which indicate that the appellant is not the owner of Survey Plot No. 134. Exhibits 64 and 65 are significant in this connection. Exhibit 64 is an entry from the “Sud” in Marathi for the year 1858 in connection with Survey Plot No. 134 (Revisional Survey Number). The original survey number of this Plot was 24 and it was known as “Kilyacha Dongar”. The total area is shown to be 249 acres and 24 gunthas. It is - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 shown as “Khalsa” land. Kharaba is shown as 89 acres 24 gunthas and the balance of the area is shown as 160 acres. In the last column the name of the cultivator is not mentioned but it is shown as “Khapachi”. It is significant that the name of the Ketkar family is absent from this record. No convincing reason was furnished on behalf of the appellant to show why his name was not entered in the “Sud”. It is also important to notice that the appellant has furnished no documentary evidence to show how his family acquired title to the land from the earliest time; there is no sanad or grant produced by the appellant to show that he had acquired title to the land. It further appears that the appellant's family did not assert any title to the land at the time of the survey made in 1858; otherwise there is no reason why its name was not entered in the “Sud” of the year 1858. It is true that there are a number of entries subsequent to the year 1890 and 1897 in which the Ketkar family is shown as the “Khatedar” or the occupant but these entries are not of much significance since the Ketkar family was in the fiduciary position of a manager of the Dargah and was lawfully in possession of Survey Plot No. 134 in that capacity. There is also another important circumstance that the appellant has no lands of his own near Plot No. 134 and the nearest lands he owns are in Bandhanwadi which are admittedly 3 ½ to 4 miles away from the top of the hill. There is also the important admission made by the appellant in the course of his evidence that there are 2 or 3 tombs behind the Musaferkhana. He stated further that “there is no cemetery or burial ground in Survey No. 134”. But this evidence is in direct conflict with the statement of the appellant in the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 previous case that “Round about the Dargah many people die every year…. Anyone that died there, whether Hindu, Muslim or Parsee if he has no heirs is buried there”. He also conceded that there is one public tank known as “Chasmyachi Vihir” near the Dargah and there are 5 wells near the Dargah and five boundaries “Aranas” about one mile from the Dargah. Lastly, reference should be made to the important circumstance that the appellant has not produced the account of the Dargah income. In the course of his evidence the appellant admitted that he was enjoying the income of Plot No. 134 but he did not produce any accounts to substantiate his contention. He also admitted that “he had got record of the Dargah income and that account was kept separately”. But the appellant has not produced either his own accounts or the account of the Dargah to show as to how the income from Plot No. 134 was dealt with. Mr Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts unless he was called upon to do so and the onus was upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of Plot No. 134. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara [44 IA 98, at p 103] Lord Shaw observed as follows: “A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough — they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in Their Lordships' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition.” This passage was cited with approval by this Court in a recent decision— Biltu Ram v. Jainandan Prasad [ Civil Appeal No. 941 of 1965 decided on April 15, 1968***$$$] . In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants upon the following passage from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh: “But it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any documents that he considers irrelevant; if the other litigant is dissatisfied it is for him to apply for an affidavit of documents and he can obtain inspection and production of all that appears to him in such affidavit to be relevant and proper. If he fails so to do, neither he nor the Court at his suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as to the contents of any such documents.” - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 24. Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, I am of the view that the First Appellate Court ought to have draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff No.1 in the present case as the plaintiff No.1 did not entered the witness box and proved her relationship with the deceased Raju @ Rajashekar. Nextly, as stated above, plaintiffs are silent about the death of Raju @ Rajashekar and perusal of plaint would indicate that, there is pedantic approach by the plaintiffs to file a suit, seeking declaration of the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with the deceased Raju @ Rajashekar and even the PW1 to PW3 have categorically deposed that there was no marriage between the plaintiff No.1 with late Raju @ Rajasheker, though, they deposed that they were living as husband and wife. It is pertinent to mention here that, no independent witness has been examined with cogent evidence to prove their relationship. It is also to be noted that the pleadings play vital role to prove the relationship with the parties and in this regard, it is relevant to follow the dictum of this court in the case of JANATHA DAL PARTY vs. THE INDIAN NATIONAL - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 CONGRESS AND OTHERS vs. INC. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine KAR 9988. 25. It is also to be noted that the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.43 of 2003 at Exhibit D29, stipulates that the defendant No.1 has filed suit against the defendant No.2, seeking permanent injunction in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2008, which came to be confirmed in Regular Appeal No.68 of 2008 (Exhibit D31). The said judgment and decree is confirmed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1179 of 2009 and same has reached finality. This Court in Regular Second Appeal No.1179 of 2009 made an observation that the rights of the parties to be decided in Original Suit No.45 of 2006. Having taken note of the aforementioned aspect and issue Nos.1 and 2 have been answered negatively by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.43 of 2003 in respect of the suit schedule properties, I am of the opinion that the First Appellate Court ignored the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.43 of 2003. Nothing has been stated by the defendant No.1 with regard to - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 late Raju @ Rajashekar. Therefore, pleadings in Original Suit No.43 of 2003 has to be considered as supplementing the judgment and decree in Original Suit No.45 of 2006. It is also to be noted that, since the rights of the parties have been crystalised particularly with regard to issue No.1 in Original Suit No.43 of 2003 and as such, defendant No.1 is estopped from supporting the case of the plaintiffs (See 2020 (9) SCC 393). 26. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the finding recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.1 to 4, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly answered the issues against the plaintiffs. At this juncture, it is relevant to cite the judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOSH HAZARI vs. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI (DEAD) BY LRS reported in AIR 2001 SC 965, wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is the duty of the First Appellate Court to re-appreciate the material on record based on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. Entire documents particularly, Exhibit P8 to P13 with regard to - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 showing the name of late Raju @ Rajashekar as the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 appears to be the documents prepared after the death of Raju @ Rajashekar. Even, it is admitted fact that the plaintiffs were unaware on which date the said Raju @ Rajashekar died. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought to have re-appreciated the material fact with the aid of surrounding circumstances by which the plaintiffs claiming right over the suit schedule properties. Strangely defendants 1 4 and 5 have supported the case of the plaintiffs and it appears that, if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, defendants 1, 4 and 5 also entitled for share in the suit schedule property. However, the defendant No.1 in Original Suit No.43 of 2003 admits about the oral partition said to have been made amongst the sons of late Jogi @ Jogaiah. The said admission made in the pleadings in terms of the judgment in the case of JANATADAL PARTY (supra) would makes it clear that the admission in the pleadings have relevance insofar as adjudicating the suit on such admissions. The PW1 in the cross examination on 19th February, 2009 at page No.8 deposed as follows: - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 "gÁd G: gÁd±ÉÃRgï EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀiÁUÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÉà £À£Àß vÀAzÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀgÀAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ gÁd±ÉÃRgï ºÁUÀÆ £ÁªÀÅ MmÁÖVzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è. MAzÀ£Éà ªÁ¢ vÀªÀÄäªÀÄä £À£Àß vÁ» ºÁUÀÆ gÁd±ÉÃRgï EªÀgÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀiÁV ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £À£Àß §½ zÁR¯É E®è. £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁd±ÉÃRgï EªÀjUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®èzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁd±ÉÃRgï MlÖV ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÁQë £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî." (emphasis supplied) 27. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is far from the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court is without any justification and proper reasons and as such, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their relationship with Raju @ Rajashekar. Accordingly, taking into consideration the observation made by the First Appellate Court at paragraph 39, I am of the view that the same is contrary to records and the First Appellate Court itself has arrived at a conclusion at paragraph 38 that the defendants 1 and 2 are disputing the relationship of the plaintiffs with late Raju @ Rajashekar, which makes it clear that, there is no proper re-appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, substantial questions of law - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33627 RSA NO.1213 OF 2015 C/W RSA NO.1493 OF 2015 framed by this Court favours the appellants herein. Having reassessing the finding recorded by both the Courts below, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court suffers from perversity and same is contrary to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTOSH HAZARI (supra). Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1) Regular Second Appeals allowed; 2) Judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal Nos.127 of 2013 and 129 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Ramanagra is hereby set-aside; 3) Judgment and decree dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Ramanagara is hereby confirmed; 4) The suit of plaintiffs is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26