- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2013 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LINGANNA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 2. SRI. RAMANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 3. SRI. MARANNA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 4. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 5. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAMANNA S/O LATE THIPPELINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 2. SRI. DODDANAGAPPA S/O LATE THIPPELINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 3. SRI. HALAPPA S/O MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 4. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 5. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH S/O MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT OBALIHALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132. 6. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O RANGASHAMANNA, D/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT JADEGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 7. SMT. SANNALINGAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKALINGAIAH, W/O ERACHIKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G S VENKATASUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5; R6 & R7 ARE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:12.2.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.140/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT V, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.9.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.99/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MADHUGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 passed in R.A.No.140/2005 by the learned Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri and the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2005 passed in O.S.No.99/2001 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Madhugiri. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the defendant, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 were the plaintiffs, and respondent No.6 and 7 were the other legal representatives of the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for a perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Doddanagappa, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs, who had two sons by name Thippelingappa and Maranna. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Thippelingappa and plaintiff Nos.3 to 5 are the sons of Maranna. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. It is contended that after the demise of Thippelingappa, by means of inheritance, khata and pahani have been mutated in the name of the plaintiffs. The defendant is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs, and has no manner of right, title or interest or possession over the suit schedule properties and he tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs requested the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendant did not give any heed to the request made by the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contented that item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by Rangamma w/o Doddavadi Ramanna i.e.. the mother of the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26.06.1927. After her demise, the defendant and his brother Halappa inherited the property and they divided the said property themselves, under a partition. In the said partition, Halappa got 12 guntas of the land, and the defendant got 19 guntas of the land out of a total extent of 31 guntas, and accordingly, the defendant claims that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 schedule item No.1 property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit regarding item No.1 of the suit schedule property. 6. The trial Court based on the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties? 2) Whether the alleged cause of action true? 3) What decree or order? 7. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1, and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. In rebuttal, the defendant was examined himself as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3, and marked two documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and issue No.3 as per the final order. The suit of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 plaintiffs was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 20.09.2005 and the defendant was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. 8. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.99/2001 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.140/2005 on the file of the learned Fast Track Court-V, Madhugiri. 9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the L.Rs of appellant/defendant have made out grounds that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff? 2) What order? 10. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 negative, and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2013. 11. During the pendency of the first appeal, the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. 12. The Legal representatives of the defendant aggrieved by the portion of the impugned judgment insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule property, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 14. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the defendant submits that the defendant filed an application for the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 passed any order on the said application. He submits that without passing an order on the application of the production of additional evidence, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. He also submits that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. He submits that the First Appellate Court has not re- appreciated the entire evidence on record, and committed an error in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned judgments. He submits that the First Appellate Court has given findings on application under Order 41 Rule 27 and though the First Appellate Court has not recorded its finding as to whether the application is allowed or rejected, however, the First Appellate Court has recorded its finding in para No.14. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the First - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 Appellate Court is in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 16. This Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 reframed the following substantial question of law: 1) Whether the First Appellate Court has justified in not recording its finding regarding the result of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure? 2) Whether the legal representatives of the defendant proves that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Reg. Substantial question of law No.1: 17. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The dispute is only regarding item No.1 of the suit - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 schedule property, and there is no dispute regarding item Nos.2 to 4 of the suit schedule properties about the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and he reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief, and produced the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P15. 18. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The trial Court after recording the evidence, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20.09.2005. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.140/2005. During the pendency of the appeal, the original defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives filed an application for the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 production of additional evidence. The First Appellate Court has observed regarding filing of an application for the production of additional evidence, however, the First Appellate Court has not recorded its finding whether the said application is allowed or rejected. But the First Appellate Court has recorded its finding in para No.14 that the appellants have sought for remanding the matter to the trial Court for fresh finding on the basis of additional document submitted by the defendant/appellant therein. If the matter is remanded as sought by the defendant, it will only protract the proceedings and no purpose will be served as the suit for a perpetual injunction. 19. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court has not passed any order on the application for the production of additional evidence, and without passing any order on the said application, the First Appellate Court has proceeded to pass the judgment on merits. The First - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 Appellate Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment on merits without considering the application for the production of additional evidence, while deciding the appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jatinder Singh and another vs. Mehar Singh and others1, held as follows: "While deciding the second appeal, however, the High Court had failed to take notice of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure and decide whether the additional evidence could be permitted to be admitted into evidence. In our view, when an application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits. That being the admitted position, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the appeal back to it for a decision afresh in the second appeal along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence in accordance with law." 1 2019(7) SCC 465 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 20. Admittedly, in the instant case, the First Appellate Court, without passing any order on the application for the production of additional evidence, dealt the matter on merits. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jatinder Singh (referred to supra). In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. Reg. Substantial question of law No.2: 21. The First Appellate Court being a final fact finding Court, is required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record, frame a point for adjudication, and answer each issues framed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is not in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC and the said judgment is contrary to the exposition of law - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs. A. Ramalingam2. 22. The impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the exposition of law laid down the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Siddiqui dead by LRs (referred to supra). Hence, in view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.2 in the affirmative. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.140/2005 insofar as item No.1 is concerned, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the First Appellate Court to rehear and pass an 2 (2011) 2 KCCR 1389 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 appropriate order on the application for the production of documents, and also on merits of the case. iii. The rest of the judgment passed by the trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding item Nos.2 to 4 are maintained. iv. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 01.12.2025. v. The office is directed to transmit the records to the First Appellate Court along with the Commissioner's report submitted before this Court. vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule property. vii. It is made clear that this Court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. viii. Liberty is reserved to the parties to file objections to the commissioner's report. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43247 RSA No. 552 of 2013 In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration, and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS