Channamallikarjuna Swamy A M vs Shantha Malliah S/O Channa Mallashetty on 22 October, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Channamallikarjuna Swamy A M vs Shantha Malliah S/O Channa Mallashetty on 22 October, 2008

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT V'

QATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF OCT9BEFi;W2E€3i53j":   -

B E F0  

THE HC)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N4.vENu§{s<§PALé;r;c:S2m;%:;AT_;'

REGULAR sEcQNa~AméfEAi; %:xic5.1Vosaj/%2;c:::%3  L?

BETWEEN:

CHﬁNNAMALLIKAR}UNA sawmv A M  _ 
3/9 MALLAPPA, 61YEARS%, -    
AGGUNDA, R/0 SHANTHINAGAR' :
TUMKUR   -  
     MAPPELLANT
(BY sax. A:v1ﬁaRNg%."z'H :a2MH;'s, A£)\_t.;a ' 

Aim :

1 * _sH_A.a:TH;a. 'MAL! ,1»; 'age SHAN NA MALLASHETFY
77 YEARS,'R)'€} A{3G:}N--DA
ARSIKERE'-TALUK 
HASSAN D1:'3TRECT='

 _3AYAKL%M"i3«R...S_[Q SHANTHA MALLIAH
 3:2 YEARS, R/O AGGUNDA
»  1.,ARs:1<ERE TALUK
" ...e..A3sgw_ia1sTR1cr

"  VPHAiAksHA Sm SHANTHA MALLIAH

"---27"{EARS, RXO AGGUNDA
" V AIRSIKERE TALUK
VHASSAN DISTRICT

.1: _.. -'

RENUKIAH S,/0 SHANTEA MALLIAH
35 YEARS, R/'O AGGUNSA
ARSEKERE TALUK

HASSAN QISTRICT

 RESPGNDENTS
(BY SR1: A V GAE\iGABHARAP?A FOR R1-3)



THIS RSA ES FILED UNDER SECTIQN 

AGAINST THE EUDGEMENT 8; DEGREE QATEDW-2_3.V.$_;2'QQ3.
PASSED IN_R.A.NO.3='¥/2081 ON THE FXLE OF THiE'E3IV1L';3UD i3'E 
(SR,.DN.), ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL'~.ANiZ} '~PAFZTL.Y_¢V 
MQDIFYING I PARTLY CONFIRMING THE JUD'GE'_§'1Ef*iVT'AAN-D V

{DEGREE DT. 28.2.2001 PASSED INfiC)AS"'i'éf).i«21g"E99c§--_{7JN"THE

FILE 0%: THE ABDLCIVIL JUDGE (JR.{}§N,}-A82...'--*MP'€Z, 

"ms APPEAL comma ¢»;%%r~m HAE'ARIN€iVTHiE {§'AY; THE 

mum' DELIVERED THE FoLLowI'm3:---

Plaintiff;  :%tI3:I31<;'.e'§.i'ia:"i't:A':::$':9§ti'Kééfezmcﬁants are the
respondentg   and permanant

injunciiivém"¥ia;.§iivf,péééjﬁiécréed by the Trial Court and appeaE "ﬁ§eéd:. having been dismissed by the' ioﬁér.£§pp§2£V£ai:a2_"Co'L:rt, this second appeat has been to s$f"a=s~éde the decree passed by Appeitata 'C{§'l¥£i"!T,_ decree passed by Tr%ai Ceurt and tc d'e:<.*f€:é t§.1'fe& S_a_.;VE.'€, in respect of both items ef piaint scheduie {:)rO§.".'J4"£.>3?T.1ii;é§';*».v For the sake of cenvenience, parties wéii be "..jL Vrr§=;fé:'«mdV'as 'plaintiff' and 'defandant', i.e., with reference ta ' fh§e%'r"ranE< in the suit.

2. Material facta of the case are:

one Charma Maiiashetrty had femur sons,_.A4":5:ar§£}ei'§%'; Maﬂappa, (2) Pattamaﬂappa, _{~3}._&G§.§f§.§'i;iﬁ§E';.'§V:§.i'§3;;?i' @¥'i't§V (4)shanthamauappa. Ptaintiff is tkae sén'ofmi:§'p;ggjj%%w?§f%;:tA defendant is the fourth soé':T._ é:f..V_Cha ':::'§_a defendants 2 in 4 are t}je...V":sens.._.L'0f 'firﬁi jdfefendant.

Reﬁationship ef the Accordéng to piaintiff, in a peiarjﬁitiogf'a'f;:§£§rz§'s:':'V%..t};1é§;é'. of Charma Maiiashettyg... p;§§értky had faiien to the share _'QfV first dafendant and subse£;..;:erati;,;.V;ﬁ'S':»:'j':f%th¢§r'p.§urchésed the same by giving 20 guntas §>fgi_'ar:cv1 in iiéu 'A' scheduie property and that thersﬁuwas é$<i:V.h:a3 r:ge: of properties between saw two :Ai:3:<<}%§:;?a:=,:sfAsA».V-{Regarding to piaintiff, the piaint '8' schedule ;)fiipV&a§r'ty'z;'_'§el% ~iiO .the mare of his father. Claiming that, his . fatﬁer {he owner in possession 9f the two items of suit schgdiiié properties and after his death, at a partitéen "'3o;ét\¥~}een himseif and his alder brother, suit properties feﬁ ""'1:¢ his share in a division effected on €}§.\0?.1993, claiming right, titie, possession and enjoyment of auét p'r€>§;I£a_;fti.e$g suit was instituted for the aforesaid reiiefs.

3. Suit was contested Vpy defe:2'déj$::fs;~::: -

defendant ﬁied written statemeﬁté. Ii:'wags.§¢:1'r*r1E{iteé¢.___tf2y:=;§§ there was a divisicn of fa-miiy V'pw pekrtiaié'l.§:utH 'stj v§ias » contanded that, he is the 0w'§;i;¢&§f:ar;d iit:i"pV§>_$V$es:s}ion of 'A' schedute property, w%:4i_cn_fe.§§E t.g_a.VL'§1'i~:=_'L»;éEiatje on 13.11.1949. According to defendar3tV«.:?s}jo..1,v,-A':}.§ai'§i't§ff':§é1.?.aéther purchased an 02.39.1_§3§0 . of ﬁis_ :_4b::fV::~}i:xﬁe'*:*'"Puttamaiiapp-a. He also Vﬁﬁﬁté-§i.¢i£d 'is £'h*e"é§wnar in possession of 4 guntaéxof jamii property. Acccrﬁing ta him, p1aintif'f i'--1ésvv Vﬁgpﬁfésééd materiaﬁ facts to defraud de;f§;anq:a'nt,$ ar§d"ts3....z=:3ake wrongfui gain and by coiiuding ' V:w'i'th_ authorities? has created faige documants and "?.r.1%?e* pé?t'iV{i£';$f§'VVmemo éated 15.%7.1§73 E5 connected and framed the faiiewing issueszm tha:t..uV§'a:_§n.f;'iff is net in possessécrz 9f suit property. 4", Based on pieadings of the parties, Trmé Court \/ ../

1. Whether the piaintéff proves he is the absoéute Qwner cf the suit s<:%'3e::':iV:r;:'iéf-.[.

property? '~ 2,, Whether the maintiff furt.%2.~?e,§'T:'p;'a{é}:&*3. _ that, he is in iawfui posszerssioén 53:)? _gth'e-.j$uét..i'. scheduia property on the date iaf §"'ji,§ir1.g tt*§e.st2%i;v?LA__

3. Whether §¥se_ pia§'r2*ti§F'*furthVei*- 3 the aiieged §nterferencse,_VLt.syj £heVde__f<én§ia,nté~:f?"" '

4. What 0rdegf.--:*;§§.':;iet:':?e_e? ' "

S" For the piajrgﬁiff, ::pc'v\1v;ér*»~1V._c;-5€ 7attomay haéder, cienosed 3$'V'?3;1W*3. :<_at*ii'3' ";i:h'ré§ ~ cth$'r witnesses were exam%ned€.:as.;:§*&fJ§".9& to P10 were mariceﬁ. First;:':ief:ana€V:§f§-E'fd§p<§;<;;;eﬁ'"'ar$ 'DW-1 and examineﬁ Dws 2 and 3 ari'ti.._ d§%c;::.§V§*;'1[e ﬁ$s" to D3 were markeé. Cansidering th..a§_ejv\gE'dencé" p~iVac_ggié.on retard, Triai Court dismigsed the .A ;~3,«ui:?; §*es4:§:é'ct_af 'A' schedme property and cteciared that, " ~.g;¥!a.Er3ti'ff §fs.iL~.thj,eV ab$o¥ute ewner in pessesséon of *8' scheduie pf5pxer'f;§f,""¥éxciuding 4 guntas of property beionging to "diefgn§Iént No.3. shown in the written statement and ﬁiériéequentiy restrained defendants by decree of '" permanent injunction from disturlfﬂg the peacefué /,5 pcissessicn and enjoyment of plaintiff over 22 gviii*é,i:'_é»s_ of iarid.

6. Piaintiff ﬂied appeai-irs»-the--'_;i®férI.'4.5§§§p'§wi.iate"VV' Court, in so far as dismissal of :'it'he:'»'.A_As_is.i£i'iVt iii srzheduie property and igrar":Vtb:i--rrg"~.g;artiAéi .e;ies:::rAéie: i'rrr'é:$Vp'éct ofi 'B' scheciuie groperty. i}eferi;:i-a ziiéfsi. d'i*:i_. mi: 'fiie...c:rr;aa~apmai nar after their appearTé'ii%i:§a- Court, they did mt ﬁie any ;r§'s:sabj_'éE£ic'if. t§"~ii"i.g dvargrvi-éié in part, passed by the Trjiai ."'§:'.i:fiv--ﬁ .§{)Wiéi'::«F\Pp=9ri'iVét& Court raised the foiioviring ';_§idir§ts_ifr}r:ctaﬁainﬁeraticiwh:

43)' _W'%ive:firejrii;'ii--r9¥'.i:«!éintiff proves that, the suit "§€i.*.5t,--:i1e':_iL2'I€-3'iiV property which feii to tha s'iiar«9;____Qfvﬁrst defendant, was exchanged the first defendant with piaintifﬁs % ' %'V".fai':her and whether the piaintiffs father iiad right, possession and enjoyment ' over the same?

(ii) Whether the piaintiff proves that the suit *3' schedute property which was partitioned by four sens of Charina Maiiashetty on 13.11.1949 arrct came to x/_ the share of p§airttiff's father and his death, piaéntiff and his b_:,';f;>'t:'r'e«€=é;f~--.'..L' gartitioned the same on 5.7.1.SJ_f?"3..V:.ah§;;§. " '% came to his possasssie:*fn-'?*""'----. ' V'

(iii) Whether the Budgment a?nAd:".DiecreT é;_"_%:>f izhten V' "Mai Court is c0i1tr:éi=y> to View,' --fa;c_ts"'~-a'é§'d"

circumstanges af tEf1 e,u':c.a;$»:&f?u ' :

(iv) Whether thére' ar' e, §§ r">»§_r:terfer§ng with- the 3u--c.*g.rj:*:en't.&Awa:_m:i."vﬂétivriéé gassed by = (V) 'A The lo${rer"Appei§VVa§§é§L'.CG%§'E-ﬁitheut a cross-appeaE air cross»-

objection "c€ef{enAii--.;§'ri'E~3;E / respondents, modified the ..%.Triahi C--a--:;', by reducing the extent cf *8' 5:V:é?:i_e'ssi!u'Eé 'i3:,i'c>i§'e2f.ty from 22\ guntas to 18 guntas and has c.S'*iA.'=.»V:'°':"1Vifssv.'-.~.;Ad' 'ﬁiéjilappeaé, '?~;s Chailenging the decree passed by the Ccaurt

-¥;Vie*i<:v*-«;¥ in appeai, partly modifying X confirming the decree

-qéiassed by 'me! Court and to grant the mhef grayed in the suit, this second appeai has been ﬂied.

8. This appeai was admitteé on consider the foilowing substantiai question cf ---. : ;_. é Whether the first appeiiate Cqgrt was" j'::*.~:;"1j:i§§é'e::'1V: = V in iaw in rnectifying the decrjee E_:§ 'ijhé__a'?b}se.§1C=.9.'._ VA of cross afilmai and cross :'O¥3§7e9§:EoW §_'/:1A"the'V V' dafendants ané in ress€ri§:i:i.afzV_g tfé-£2 V{E4iﬁfbv-tG":..t§"i'%%vv modiﬁed extent of tha pra7peft3<?_ T I V'

9. I have heai":i; Efi-J§rz:azj;i'a.ij?2.. ":3_§mhaj, Eearned cosmsai for vGangadharappa, Sea mac! c%o*t:--n§é;§ 'fc$i'}*fiA:*.:5:a e"'r£c';'s-pi0n'ci'*eai*;té';, 105, ._ ~Le;aé':*"m.¢;!A"'::9im$e£_ 'fo-r appeiéant contenaed that, Appeilaté §n its jurisdiction in reducing _ theV_e§§<'mnt cf "B'._V_ $¢;hacV:iuie property and denying the reiéef Vits'§Lbp§'§§Lé;zf,"'§.n the absence of any chaiienge to the decree or crass-objection by respondents. He _ cc:1'tend.}éd-tééiat, though the appeiiant has preved hia case 'Tin ,r;espVe*cst of bath Stems eaf suit proparties by péacing an 'r.eccn*ié:i, oral and documentary evidence showing his " -wxwnership as weéi as possession and enjoyment ever both 'vx 10 permﬁssible for defendants / raspondents to quea_.%E:§é?i%;t*:« 7t%m adverse finding r'ec.orded by the Triai Cou.§='i;;--

ccunset, by taking me threugh Ex~;Vms1{ g:ta'2:.'i"1:.4."_tj%ft:a't.,V p!aEntiff's father had right in §*'ves;:':éci*.'° property" to an extent eof 14 .g;'u.n_tasA'an§J Va;;f':T'i>";,si_A§:.._:?g'i.:n-';:'3s sf'- iand beicmging to Putt'amai!Vap.§aLv._wa$ p.L::"chaAse.e.:i by him and thus, had right o§:i'i3;t§f--<.::9é'« against which, Triai Court haﬁ earr§c;':'15e'{>'§i'fs!§,{:'iéectaration and injunction rferi... rnisrepresentatéen and ffa_ud was noticed by the Appeii'aAte--_C<;QVLfiV.z:;zﬁ'i;§"'é=§§'erc'is§e of its pcwer under Ruie 33 Qrder mistake committed by the Tri'a_;§ Court. ﬂéiarnéd ccaunsei piacea reliance an the [ c§«e,§:isi<}1'ﬁ: .i:i "t.he case of RAVINBER KUMAR SHARMA vs. 5T;a;Te:s;z%A+:-gsgm AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1999 SC 3S"ZF*1 ﬁﬁntended thai ﬁiing 0? cross-objection after the A1926 Vaﬁxendmant is optionai and neat: mandatery and ' "'}id'wéver, Rule 33 of Order XL} CPC enabées the Appeiiate " " *-filourt to make any order whéch ought to have passed er made and £0 pass or make such further ogother decree er ( .

12 titie and ént-eresst ever it, relief was not granteé to the plaintiff by the Triai Court.

in view of admissions in the written state__t?;f'é"e9s'*:£_'3«.e}:§§i:

DWJ. and aiscs considering Ex.P1, jhe saEe"-dv--éf$:~€3:'biétweaiéz2 the p§a§r:téff's fathar and Puttamakfa;pp:aA,T«A§%%;»<§':é§.;};§-Eﬁg 4 of mad described in the writ'te:z3_staf'e.rr§é»n:, heié that the pmintiﬁ' estab§i$V:¥*i?caxd;: ﬁght"a'n.§_'}$esé;ass§0n in respect of 22 guntasv §.1fffan:§ i::;~?%B*~..._g;ﬁ'ﬁa<ju§a greperty am decreed tha suit._acccrd:.nz_§j£y. ' V' V

-. 'i.éé"i*:1e§"Ap'p.§ii*ate "Judge, after cansédering era? and docui":}4e*%ntafy_ not onﬁy dismissed the apveai offﬁév piaintifﬁ igﬁt without cross apnea} or :.:rc>s5-=0bject'son, ::f~a§i;t;ccé;c3 .t%1:a7vayttent of suit '8' scheciuie property. Though ~théV§éér:§'i_ed éﬁﬁeiiate Eudge has heid that the appraciation ef' £.=.v§d:a n'z;é by the Triai Ccmrt dees not suffer from any *irafi4_rmV{t"3I and though there are no reasans for Eraterfaréng, 'fft;'a§'£<'i§r2g irate censideratizm the Sam deed Ex.D1, Re was heid ' ' '" that, piaintiff has right and possesséen 'FY 14 + 4 Qantas sf 13 iand and that, Triai Court has committed an hoﬁding that piaintiff is in possession sf 22 'A

15. As is clear from the re:';6rc§"'ai:':z'§the'$:s_b'mr§%.<§$;$§;";$:« made by the beamed cobL::_1sei, '~..§:é42--fendaT§jt:3.1'"haﬁ'; é's§t =, questioned correctness of.th€.V:V;£"udgmei1.tV§ V7I§e c:}9ee at' V Triai Court in the C'.;éiv.i':'t;"Vv Though defendants had met qufé$ti§n'§écj'jV"'§§1g..<.:;fj&f'f§§{;t.ness sf dacree 985593 "1 'e9P35?%Ai>f 9gﬁ%?*?'#ﬁ-§5E%:%e%%ﬁ%d in *3' ﬁcfiedi-He property in' by the Triai Ceurl: and even ﬁiéd" conciusions duréng hearings? we the piaintiff, yet, the iower Appeﬂate'tsauvft.§3';asAA'*:%16&uiﬁed the decree passed by the ""«._'Trie%_:!5*~C{3.i§rt,nreo§L£cir*:*g"the extent cf the property from 22 g'®%aAs:'vt§§'i'8 .:§:s{jtas and dismissed the appeai ﬂied agaénst £h¢.3."J&dg%7§v'féTr}§::and Decree of the Triai Ceurt.

A. 16'.' In support of this appeal, ieamed counsai far éppeitant mainly cantended that the course adapted by

-~-the lcwer Appeiiate Court i$ cieariy ccmtrary ta %aw. Admitteciiy, there is no appaai questionév the Triai <IIourt'$ /,.

15 18.1 In the case of THE STATE 0? UTTAjR3'?Rg»i:C3$.SH Am Awomea vs. sum ANANE) SWARUP;..':_}ag:éVft;éé (1974) 1 ECG 42, it has been heldas'foAi%§:~i§;s: " ';\4 * 11 .... .. It is wet! settied by sfé=;:Veéé§ A"éie¢§'SEv§ n'ae.f Cami that the respond[ e't1~9:.®caratA3Li:p;:2crt: §?a::'%g_jﬁg-.:::s°'ée an gmumés raised by hirvﬁ*z§'»£1a§_V;dec'Eée_du:Taﬁaiiigst him by the Courts ?a.glow' §i1L~ };hé-..&anaIé§Sf Hxtaf the proviséens of Orfé'er__'4i,.V§;§ie::'A'2V}Z;.:.CE-Vii Procedure Code. Tbs respa;:1vdé;'nt;'*tf'2,g§*éfo:§§;.v"i$ antitied to recanva'sS";tV!5{eV pE+i'nt_hiéir:§_"t.e.:} 'iupgzért the decree cf the £§€:"L§é°:*.t i¢'niT'j*.-gftz£_a:if¢--£i 'ﬁejécted by it or even na%tVT.g§nL:§id}é;:§sd " Thehniv limitation m that :;;i:?:V__g__;_'1___g!_i9"¥§g;';i";,*:==._;g_:*»i"the«v%.{é$u¢n'dent by reivina ugon guch ggtgqggénd' to mutiiatg or daatrcv _'v--.SAh--<§'rt~~«e$f that, within tha ambit 0? the §aw, heV"£:'anV____$«upport the decree on any gmumzé é%;i'asI a;2;_e ta him.

(Emphasis suppiéed by me) 1s."2_M'*~ xn ma case of SHANKAR POPAT GAIDHANI vs. "':V'_A'E~i;E§!.{}fé'.%4zﬂaN ummz MQRE (saw) av ms. AND OTHERS, . faportecé in (2003) 4 SCC 130, the materiai facts were that, piaintiff ﬂied a suit fer speciﬁc perfarmance of the 3/ 16 agreement to seéi and for a eérectécm upon respe;1'ti*e.i3':--.'.E$E_eif _ to cause deiivery ef peesessien re him ane...a9_j'j~r;1,ecTiffee. 5°63?"

perpetuai injunction against defer1:§ian.f:'\;x§.eL'8> ':{a'p«e4e':Via.e_£Vjei' Horfbie Supreme Ceurt) eee_aE;$_o ag:'e:"sei_:v*'a§t: defeﬁ?:3Ve.f:f£?s to 6. Defendant No.8 filed §§'fi£{f'en_VV5teieﬁj'ee't. . 'fI"?':e suit:

was decreed: '     x
(a) d E recti ng 4eefende'ﬁf  N    'tee sa Ee eeed ;

(b) c£efe;:c§e'n§:VS::.:ei'§>.1':_§9i 'r3._ys.<ere_' ;'3Ve§;f;eanentEy restrained getting the names of "e'm'."ered re the suit Iand;

(C) eeferzﬁente' 8 permanently restrained by . mendetow» §n_j;mct§en.

€§_e§ee:eents 2 to 6 restrainee by permanent " - sn;un::;%nr:;

--V (e) ' ..E§*efeefdant No.8 was directed by mandatory " injunction;

Defendants No.1 ice 6 and 8 to pay casts ef the suit. Plaintiff dict not chaiéenge the Judgment and Becree eéther by ﬁiing an appeaﬁ er by preferring any cress--~obje<:tion. \ / 17 Qrigénai éefendant N01 aione preferred an a;3peaij"z§%g§'~a_fié*es't the Eudgmerat and Decree of the Tréai Court._. ':--«H§'§:'§f§'.v:.CZc:;%.§'é'tT.A "

cﬁsmissed the appea! cenfirming the .c£ e<:re'é'ife"'%."§e:i§sa4s;_{b}V '

(c) {d} & (f) of the Triaé Caurt. '?hai;'_'_'ti*:';e c'is2.c_v':*'e::eE of Ciause (3) passed by théfrigl Cduﬁ vvVa§ :£:§'a;_§"i'f~Ee£i"i. §n'~ the appaaé ﬂied beforg the E-j_«:>.:§'A'i:.~:!_;¢=:«'~:3gpfémé.__CQ,s§rt, whiie settim aside the ;"§Lidvg"iﬁ2;ér2_t it was heiﬁ a5 fo}§ews:- V _ .:é°'+' ?T§§'v§%'$»§:$W§:ouid not have e:<er.c§§$e§:i' 3u:§*;ac3E<fi:ica'r2.VV--v'i%n issuing the said &.€vv§re;:t%au;*1 '--":a'x;.éI2%_am_§!er --O-mar 41 Ruie 33 9? the Cate"gf£§9§:!:V".P%t:«<§édiire inasmuch as the saéd _prcn£ié:.on' c:t(:-V:;;.ici ':f§o'i:~*'EV3e inveked by cme respendent $5"agaE:§S't*~Vav!§9ther; as therefor it was cbﬁgatory H o}§ i;hVte"'9art of the piaintiff to fiie a crc:ss~object§0n " Qrcier 41 Rule 22 of the Code of cm:

"" Pr;>i;:é::ii_s:.§'a and give netice. in reiatian therate to gag gééfties who daimed independent possessien .. ovvér the suit Eand.

: "'v~ i8f3 In the case of FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTB. "AND ANOTHER Vs. umom OF mom Am QTHER3.

reparted in (1999) 4 SCC 149, considifng the scope as? 18 erder XLI Ruie 22 CFC, it was hard that the said prrfrwision can appéy rmiy when respondent -~ in --- appea%_.r.:.«"§ 'r2 the order of the High Court on any greunderjeéidf 13.4 In R.S.A. 330.995/03:%}etri$fEté'r3 RAMég'rBHArrArrD QTHERS vs. vmxre KuMV.e%1rz«r.__meererr-ieiae; e.r¢%eg;¢.:e my 25.09.98, one ef the points¢:9§*%j_E_c~h_v_Vfeii"Feryreréisideration was, whether, theA'-«ﬁzk:JrhLrr}E2::.r%rrs"""--Ve'§%§'$f$ndant5) witheut chalienging theV.decreeV~ees;r.er% piaintéff by the Triai Cour'f;,_V<i{;a'r: }§j.fr;.;: of the Trier Ceurt in set:__'::r1r;i-=;=aAV;V:a'Lj::'Ve.:;»i,:.i:"Th'e:ifa.c2:s-' in that case were that, Triaﬁ Court rwfarigpaversecii for 1/15"' share in faxreur ef theg&p'Ee§ntiffs "€.%1..V<_:§§.IV5gi*: their ciaérrs in the suit was far a decree erzare. To the extent of granting decree ef ifiﬁm Court, defendant did mt chaiienge the d+é'::ree':.ire:'the Appetiate Court. The piaintiffs ﬂied the A.a,r:__pea"§"1io the extent of not granting 4/15"' share, Neither "'A._V7a"'cr:oss appeai nor cross-objection under Ruie 22 of Order " CPC was ﬁled by the defeedants. The Appeiiate Ceurt alkowed the appeai in part and granted enhanced share, ''>~ .« 1?

Chaﬁengéng tha decrae paased by the Triai Ccs":§':¥*'a:h_"ﬁ§'i'd_' modéﬁed by tha Appaﬂate Court, the second---.4'é";3pé§i' 'wé.§'*A' fﬁed. In the appeai, it was cantersd'&ﬁ--.tha--}§ Er?"a§T§.'é%;§.$ 'é::§'_j*;§':é, ' pawer conferred an the Appe;iiate.":(:g§;.§}t"

Qrder XL} CPC, Appeitate :*_;1c>'a'.t§iT':"\,'«'*._: ii'ijié""e.':ea?:c:"e:e"~L' even though it wasvmgt a;;2Vp*&é;.iVL§s.d""*by t¥é"Te'v»a:ns2.iéce:e$sfas§ party. The said centéﬁtiﬁn »$;ve:§;'$::'n§§g %t§§fed by homing as fciiows:

21. dfg-;f{én_d}_a--%jt:S_' against Wham the Triai §2Qu;rt""d,é<::fpe;a_d_ a:ir_a"e§.':.';i't granting 3./15"' share, 'was nﬁ Vk:i'::a.1§%en g'a§§"v%3y' them by fiiing an appem er a n€£sm7cra:id.L3Vr3 € 'cf"c:f§$é§--obje<:tion in the first appeiiate . _v€Zsur4£"a_::1dVrtfaeéspééai before the first appeliate Caurt oni*§*""a:;_1.a.inst' not granting of the decree for _ .§ef«13.'f3*~«share claémed by the piaintiffs anti that the ' the Tree? Court with regard to the lack sf ﬁecessity and famiiy benefit was not under .. ﬁﬁaiienge, the first appeiiate Court has not viiomrnitted any error in not censmering and adjudicating the piea regarding Iegal necessity arm famﬁy benefit, ﬁndéng of the Triak Ceurt with regard tn which, had not been contested by the defendants am has aiiowed the finding to bacome fmaﬁ, baaed \ /"T ' 20 on which the Trial CC)Ul"°t decreed the sell: lﬁ._e..e{'l~tl_.'~~.vv§f the first appellate Court had int.erfer1ee""l*«?E";E:vl"§:_fl:l?::e'«_v partial decree granted by the Trialh{'.e-:.;Vlft;,ﬁeslllteul there being a challenge to §t,""lt--«woe.ld _hé{ve_red:j.ce't€ the plaintiffs to e sltuetloe-..we*ze:¢3 ti:.;ar1~ would have been, if l;ee_y l'sa'<3._v_r*:1c>t eep"eell.ee:

the first appellate Coulf":...,r=It le 'l*le_t"-e.¥*: exceptleeel case where the...decl'ee-422%ithle-.._tr§el lie',-.se" patently erroneeus and ea*:eeT'et lye E:-::a:Vl.l%§':{e;ve.:e'l~..ced at all even ln the absence of eglileppeel1or"'-ef'c:e:;«--*ebjectEcn being filed agairl.el::'.§t. l-§eIf%«i:e;4.A't'?l'.e...;'ef§tention of Sri. A. Kesheeav 'tl3je_f1;_.'--l.._se-tieedeppeel can lie even ageiiletw 'o¥l?A'£«he:fl"ial::§C0urt decree which was l§:5ef.;o;re_t«hVe' ﬁre': appellate Court, in exefcélse "under Rule 33 of Order 41 CPC=§e 'ageVl'rl$:t2't.h'e:§.eftled prleclples 0? law and is not ; ':*:e::l.ael5e.'-» ._ " 'V

-.§l*s~.l;_he case of mvzmpee KUMAR SHARMA V. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3571,. relied . uncle b*;i:':Slll"." A.V.Gengaclharep;:>a, the fecte were that the A"ll. 'V..,.:plel;jtif?"'laad filed suit for eamages for recevery ef the leﬁoulet shcswn in schedules 'A' 'B' and 'C'. The Triel Court VT "ciilsmiesed the suit. But, an an appeal, the High Court, \/ 21 whike homing that defendants 1 to 3 were guElty,vVg§fiéfinf;ed reiief only in regard to pecuniary damages scheduies but dismissed the suit far....é_§aa.jp:é;¢a$.nia'r3#._ "* damages in the 'A' schedule itetfxs. _ PE;a'i':":tEffA':'7i.§é:§~_§£E»_ appeai in the Harfbie Supmnge Ci:;L.1ﬁ:V--for_r:--%:%;'§.}'g3éczi:ij"si.é§"3é '~L' damages, covered by 'A' sc¥1é£iEL':;2.iETé. _?"heV"c;i.efﬂ7eT:*.v}da:}%;s did not ﬁle any appeai nor cre§$~*'ob3,:é#i§_dn':.i._m {egard t o: t¥§je ammmt decreed fer pecuniary 'B' and 'Q' schedules. T%1e '9g;)7i'nt c.onsic';'éré3_§v:é;--::...__T not iwawng ﬁled ﬁxé;§pea_i"éfv¢ro.§$T:.:§'%gjeﬁtion in regard to the pe¢ur}§%a§yV'€ia.fﬁ;a1g9gf.fi.'%'Er§ 8 anﬁ C Scheciuies cemid he pe:;m»it'§e*c31ta ra|y'en Orciar 41, Ruie 22, (3% J (2,255 a--mendie1d'"i':*: 19%) and to contend that the miating to maiice, absenca of %'ea}'§va..na;§EVie arm prcbabie cause was» not correct 3.316-.LA«:'~"whether the resaondents couid be ";3§é:'mEtted to sumort the disrmssai of the suit A by the Hiah Coart so far as the nonqsecuniary : damaqas in A Scheduie were ccncemeci, on that basis?

\ 22 it was hair: as faiiews:

We maid tﬁat the respan_den£a,_-- de?ef'n§jarf.étA.'i§ﬁ' a?3 f~,,... "

appeat can, without, _fE§ingWAfj:':>ss---oT%3j'fs2.;ftf<3}°a attack an adverse ﬁndiVn'g.::'i:;:on v?§ri~..t;;E1'~.aLf'€§ewf¢:*:jé5e1" ' in part has {men ag ai'nst_. fhe reapondent, f0fVA--*C._i';§:f3' :¥:;_1,[r§a§~e--V.'si;"$?ain§na tﬁe decree to the extant' icm£é'§?.i'_~:f'::t>urt had dismisse:§:J..'t"!*sv:=.s sagﬁV éQ.é3rn$€~~ }"£hev' cljezfenciarats ~ Tﬁ'e__ 1ﬁ§éng-- bf' éféés-objection, after €t_i7}a.;ﬁ_4_i$ ';'6 "':x:1§§.§e;¢-§§fit9;¥"st V§é pure!y nptianai avr3d"ﬁct.:i*ja§1ri'3';i'iofy';.VV.:" V' '{é§nd.érE{%§§ng is by me for emphasis) 'v§'he .i.~above, it is cigar that respondent / dv.a'fe2.;4a:da;1,t.'i::fi:'..~a':V.3 appeai, without ﬁiéng crass-objlactéon, can "~.-«.__ ;at:tacE< avffadverse finding upon which a decree in part has j"=§ean'.j'A"passed against the reapondents for the purpose of ..._"V':v"§;;_§;taining the decrea ta the extent the tower Ceurt has 25 Triai Caurt and affirmed by the Appeaiiate Court E42'a.VV'§*§§$g:'gject of 'A' scheciuie property, does not caii far §nte:ffé'faa*4:i:£*--;_§Vj:. _

21. Far the feregoérag c}§scu$;:s§'6rs~«anc'%_ r"e_3aé<ov:*:;«":,: E-7{;:ax:s*$ ' the foliowirsg orderr (E) Appeat is aiioweé in . _ _

(ii) Judgment and "No. 34,581 dated 21.8.G3_by Arasékere, is hereby set a;§Etiéj. §ndvifhé_séEd.:_"é:§xv§§Vé'a:~~~'aé§aads dismissed as devoid of

(iii) :V1Juc%gmérSt'fja:::fi<€ 'I3§.§{i'ra'e~:" passed in (3.3. $40.12:/94 dated 2"z.%_._42'%.11V)}1 '_5y'."'§§Ld§t%onal Civﬁ Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Are.§{5é§{er=eg is ﬁereizgy restored, :I:;':. ;t§{'eAw.ﬁpjrcumstances ef the case, the partiea are dirétted .f§:-;bia}ar their {I05tS thmughaut.

Sd/-r {§ Judge sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court