- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2010 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. R N TARA D/O LATE R.L. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.51/1, OLD NO.20/1A, SONAR STREET CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S RAJAMMAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O SUBRAMANYA IYER, W.P LATE NATESHWARA IYER, SINCE DECEASED SURVICED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 2. SMT. M. S. KAVERAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA IYER, SINCE DECEASED SURVIVED BY RESPONDENT NO.3. RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 R/AT NO.177, 1ST MAIN ROAD, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 010. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 3. SMT SHARADA RAMAN D/O LATE SUBRAMANYA IYER AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, 2ND STREET, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, KAMATIPURA, VELAVANAKAR KOIL CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2019, APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED; VIDE ORDER DATED 16.03.2020 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT IN RESPECT OF R3 BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 R3 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R1 & R2;) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2010, PASSED IN R.A.NO.100/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.07.2007 PASSED IN OS.118/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), MYSORE. TRAIL COURT DECREED THE SUITAPPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the appellant in R.A.No.100/2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mysuru dated 18.03.2010, whereby the said appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed by the appellate Court by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. Appeal against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are abated. Notice to respondent No.3 is held sufficient vide order dated 16.03.2020. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs has instituted aforesaid suit against the appellants - defendants for declaration, acquisition, recovery of possession, mesne profits etc., in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the appellant-defendant, came to be decreed in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the appellant-defendant, thereby declaring the respondents- plaintiffs to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the appellant-defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the respondents - plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal in R.A.No.100/2007 before the First Appellate Court, in which, the appellant filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The said application as well as the main appeal having been opposed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 respondents-plaintiffs, the First Appellate Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by declaring the respondents- plaintiffs to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the appellant-defendant to hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant and also the total tax paid from the year 1980 till the date of the impugned judgment and decree. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court and First Appellate Court, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 4. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 22.07.2010 by formulating/framing the following substantial questions of law: “The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: i) Whether the judgments of the Courts below can be sustainable in law in the face of the plea of estoppel and waiver raised by the appellant, but not answered by the Courts below? ii) Whether the document Ex-D1 has been wrongly interpreted by the Courts below, in as much as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 executant of the said document Raju Iyer has given up his right in favour of the appellant and said document Ex-D1 is in respect of the suit schedule property?” 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that an additional substantial question of law deserves to be framed in the present appeal. i) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC? Re: Additional Substantial Question of Law: 6. Before averting to the other substantial questions of law, it would be necessary to deal with the additional substantial question of law referred to above. In this context, as stated supra the appellant, who was the defendant in the suit filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence along with 24 documents as hereunder: (i) Representations to the Mysore City Corportion 5 in Nos. (ii) Representaion to the Vanivilasa Water Works, Mysuru (iii) Notice dated 20.11.1981 (iv) Notice dated 09.12.1981 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 (v) Letter written by the Mysuru City Corporation dated 28.09.1981 (vi) Representation written by the appellant to the Mysuru City Corporation dated 25.05.1985 (vii) Pavathi Pathra dated 25.05.1985 (viii) Electrical receipt 3 in Nos. dated 22.03.1986 (ix) Letter written by the City Corporation to the appellant dated 21.03.1986 (x) Building estimation dated 26.03.1986 (xi) Letter written by the appellant to the City Corporation (xii) Postal acknowledgment (xiii) Tax paid receipts 5 in Nos. (xiv) Electric Work Estimation 7. As per the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the said documents were not relevant or necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. However, a perusal of the aforesaid documents which were sought to be produced by the appellant by way of additional evidence is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the said documents are relevant, necessary and material for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy involved between the parties and the same are necessary for disposal of the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 in the affidavit in support of the application for additional evidence, the appellant had made out valid and sufficient grounds as to why she could not produce the said documents before the Trial Court despite exercise of due diligence. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the First Appellate Court fell in error in rejecting the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant and consequently, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court rejecting the application for additional evidence deserves to be set aside and the additional substantial question of law framed above is answered in favour of the appellant by allowing the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant. Additional substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. The next question that arises for consideration is that the procedure to be followed by this Court for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. As stated supra, the additional documents are relevant and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 dispute between the parties and in order to do so, it would be necessary to permit both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims that would be possible only if the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are set aside in terms of the provisions contained under Order XLI Rule 28 CPC. 10. 10. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that having allowed the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Court by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in this regard, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise Sections 107, 23, 28 and 33 of CPC and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is hereby allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22332 RSA No. 1702 of 2010 ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.03.2010 in R.A.No.100/2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Mysuru, is hereby set aside. iii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 06.07.2007 in O.S.No.118/1998 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysuru, is hereby set aside. iv) The matter is remitted back to Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) The appellant shall appear before the Trial Court on 11.06.2026. vi) Registry is directed to transmit the entire records back to the Trial Court so as to enable the appellant-plaintiff to tender the same in evidence before the Trial Court. vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellants as well as the respondents to adduce evidence/additional evidence in support of their respective claims. viii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12