Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.V.Jayaram vs Smt.Girijamma on 14 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.24 OF 2015 (RO)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.836 OF 2015
IN MSA NO.24/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.V.JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
R/AT NO.5, 1ST CROSS,
MEI COLONY, BAGALKUNTE,
BENGALURU-43.
2. SRI. K.V .NARASIMHA MURTHY,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
Location: HIGH R/AT NO.107, 4TH CROSS,
COURT OF CANARA BANK COLONY,
KARNATAKA NAGARABHAVE,
BENGALURU-72.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
R/AT MUDUVADI VILLAGE,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.
4. SMT. K.V. INDIRANI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
W/O SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA,
R/AT NO.31/32, 2ND CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
MARIYAPPANA PALYA,
BENGALURU-80.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI K.V.VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.58/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
R2 TO R9 ARE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1.
2. SRI K.V. VENKATACHALAPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT KADIRIPURA VILLAGE & POST,
VIA BETHAMANGALA,
BANGARPET-563114.
3. SRI K.V. JAGADISH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
4. SRI K.V. PARTHASARATHY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
5. SRI K.V. SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
6. SRI K.V. VIDYASHANKARA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
7. SMT. K.V. RAMAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT SAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KYASAMBALLY HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK-563114.
8. SMT. K.V. SAVITHRI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
9. SMT. K.V. LALITHA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-122.
SRI K. KRISHNASWAMY,
DEAD BY HIS LRS.
10. SRI. K. MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY.
11. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY.
12. SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
D/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY.
13. SRI KODANDARAMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
R10 TO R13 ARE
R/AT KADARIPURA VILLAGE,
KYASARNBALLI HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
14. SRI. S. VANKATESHAN,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI V. SURAPPA.
15. SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA,
W/O SRI. SRIDHAR.
16. SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA.
R14 TO R16 ARE R/AT NO.3137,
2ND CROSS ROAD,
MARIYAPPANA PALYA,
BENGALURU - 80.
17. SRI. S. SUBRAMANAYAM,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI V. SURAPPA.
18. S. SHESHADRI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI V. SURAPPA.
R17 AND R18 ARE R/AT NO.33-B,
20TH MAIN, 1ST R. BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10.
19. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAIAH,
W/O K.V. JAYARAM,
20. SMT. PADMAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAIAH.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
21. SMT. KOMALA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAIAH.
22. SRI. B.PURUSHOTHAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI SRINIVASAIAH.
R19 TO R22 ARE R/AT NO.290,
5TH MAIN, S.T. BED, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-34.
23. BHAVANI,
D/O LATE K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
W/O J.R.NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
1ST CROSS, SANTHE MAIDANA,
KOLAR - 563101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 AND R23;
SRI. M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUSNEL FOR
SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R13;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R14 TO R18 SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R19 TO R22 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.10.2018;
R1 IS DEAD AND R2 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1,
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2022)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 25 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.1.2015 PASSED IN R.A.NO.55/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KGF, ALLOWING
THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 11.04.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.127/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KGF, REMANDING THE CASE FOR LIMITATION
PURPOSE.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO. 836/2015:
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. KRISHNASWAMY,
(DEAD) REP. BY HIS LRS.
1. SRI. K. MANJUNATH,
SON OF LATE KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SMT. RAJESHWARI,
D/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
4. SRI. KODANDARAMA,
S/O LATE KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT KADARIPURA VILLAGE,
KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VENKATACHALAIAH,
(DEAD) REPRESENTED BY LRS.
1. SRI. K.V. JAYARAM,
S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, 4TH CROSS,
MEI COLONY, BAGALKUNTE,
BENGALURU-560072.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
2. SRI. K.V. NARASIMHA MURTHY,
S/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.107, 4TH CROSS,
CANARA BANK COLONY,
NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-563126.
3. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
D/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUDAVADI VILLAGE,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563126.
4. SMT. K.V. INDIRANI,
D/O LATE SRI. VENKATACHALIAH,
W/O SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.31/32, 2ND CROSS,
MARIYAPPAN PALYA (GAYATHRINAGAR),
BENGALURU-560021.
K.V.VENKATANARAYANA (DEAD),
REPRESENTED BY LRS.
5. SMT. GIRIJAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
SINCE DECEASED. REP. BY HER LRS.
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 14 ARE
ALREADY ON RECORD.
6. SRI. K.V.VENKATACHALAPATHY,
S/O LATE SRI. K.V.VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT KADIRIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
VIA BETHAMANGALAL,
BANGARPET-563101.
7. SRI. K.V. JAGADISH,
SON OF LATE SRI. K.V.VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, KGF-563122.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
8. SRI. K.V.PARTHASARATHY,
S/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K G F-563122.
9. SRI. K.V. SRINIVASA,
S/O LATE K.V.VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K G F - 563122.
10. SRI. K.V.VIDYASHANKARA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K G F -563122.
11. SMT. BHAVANI,
D/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATARANAYANA,
W/O J.R. NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST CROSS,
SANTHE MAIDANA,
KOLAR-563101.
12. SMT. K.V. RAMAMANI,
D/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT SAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KYASAMBALLY HOBLI,
BANGARPET TALUK-622543.
13. SMT. K.V. SAVITHRI,
D/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD
ROBERTSONPET, K G F -563122.
14. SRI. K.V. LALITHA,
D/O LATE SRI. K.V. VENKATANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 85/2, 5TH CROSS ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET, K G F -563122.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
NARASAMMA (DEAD),
REPRESENTED BY LRS.
15. SRI. S. VENKATESHAN,
S/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA & NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
16. SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI,
D/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA & SMT NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
17. SRI. S. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA & NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
R16 TO R18 ARE R/AT NO.3137,
2ND CROSS ROAD,
MARIAPPANA PALYA, (GAYATHRINAGAR),
BENGALURU-560021.
18. SRI. S. SUBRAMANYAM,
S/O LATE SRI V. SURAPPA & NARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
19. SMT. S. SHESHADRI,
S/O LATE SRI. V. SURAPPA & NARASAMMA,
W/O SRI. SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
R19 AND R20 ARE R/AT NO.33-B,
20TH MAIN, 1ST R. BLOCK, RAJAJINGAR,
BENGALURU-560010.
SARASAMMA (DEAD)
REPRESENTED BY LRS.
20. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH & SARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
C/O S. NAGESH,
NO.15, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT, MALAGALA,
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560091.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
21. SMT. PAMAVATHI,
D/O LATE SRI. SRINIVASAIAH & SARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
22. SMT. KOMALA,
D/O LATE SRI, SRINIVASAIAH & SARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
C/O VANISHREE JAYARAM,
118, MAHATAM ENCLAVE,
ISTC, CTTB, GATE NEAR YMCA SCHOOL,
JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH-482001.
23. SRI. PURUSHOTHAM,
D/O LATE SRI SRINIVASAIAH & SARASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
R21 AND R23 ARE R/AT NO.290,
5TH MAIN, S.T.BED, KORAMANAGALA,
BENGALURU-560034.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATACHALAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED IN RA.NO.60/2011
LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS
RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G. PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. P. RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R15 AND R23;
NOTICE TO R6, R17 TO R20 AND R22 -
SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R16 IS HELD SUFFICIENT,
VIDE ORDER DATED 20.07.2023;
NOTICE TO R21 IS DISPENSED WITH,
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024;
R5 IS DEAD AND R6 TO R14 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R5,
VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2015
PASSED IN R.A.NO.60/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F., DISMISSING THE
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754
MSA No. 24 of 2015
C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015
HC-KAR
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 11.04.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.127/2002 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.G.F.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. M.S.A.No.24/2015 is filed by defendants Nos.2 to 5 challenging the order of remand. R.S.A.No.836/2015 is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff challenging the confirmation of the order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the claim made before the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court remanded the matter for consideration in respect of the counter claim.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants in M.S.A.No.24/2015 would submit that the very remand is erroneous and while remanding the matter, reason is given that for proof of counter claim, there must be specific properties and boundaries as per Order 8 Rule 6A and B of CPC. The learned counsel would submit that when the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR defendants have claimed the counter claim in respect of the suit schedule property is concerned, no need to make specific properties. If they are entitled for a share in the property, they are also equally entitled for a share among the other sharers and hence the very question of remand does not arise. The Appellate Court committed an error in remanding the matter.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants in R.S.A.No.836/2015 would vehemently contend that the Appellate Court committed an error in confirming the order of the Trial Court with regard to the rejection of the claim made by the appellants and also erroneously proceeded to pass an order to make a specific claim in respect of the specific properties.
5. The learned counsel for defendants Nos.5 to 14 would contend that when the claim was made claiming 1/3rd share out of the properties, in order to grant the relief also, there must be specific boundaries. The learned counsel would submit that three house properties are included in the plaint and the same is not shown in Ex.D.94 and hence the Appellate Court rightly remanded the matter.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR
6. In reply to this argument, the learned counsel for the appellants in M.S.A.No.24/2015 would contend that Ex.D.94 is the document of grant order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner only in respect of the landed properties and not in respect of the house properties. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 to 14 cannot be accepted.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals and also considering the material available on record, R.S.A.No.836/2015 is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The very approach of the Appellate Court is erroneous in coming to such a conclusion, and hence no need to even admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. The First Appellate Court has to consider the material available on record, since the material available on record is sufficient and the First Appellate Court committed an error in remanding the matter and dismissing the appeal in R.A.No.60/2011. However, passed an order setting aside the order of counter claim granted by the Trial Court in remanding the matter for
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR limited purpose under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, 28, 33 of CPC for proof of counter claim with specific properties and boundaries as per Order 8 Rule 6A and B of CPC. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.31, extracted the properties covered in Ex.D.94. Ex.D.94 is the grant order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, since the land is an inam land and when such order was passed, earlier survey numbers are mentioned, but made the column against the said survey numbers mentioning the properties covered in plaint and decree are different survey numbers and hence made an observation that the lands granted under Ex.D.94 are totally different from the lands covered in the suit.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that when the property was granted, earlier survey numbers are given and when the property was podded, re-numbers are given. Having perused paragraph No.31, the Appellate Court made an observation that when re-survey is conducted, the documentary evidence produced to that effect is to be appreciated by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court ought to have considered the earlier numbers and also the subsequent new numbers are assigned after the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR phodi work and instead of that, an observation is made that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the same. The Appellate Court also would have appreciated the same. The other reason given by the Appellate Court is that in the written statement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not specified the schedule properties as per Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC read with Order 8 Rule 6A and B of CPC to justify the counter claim. 1976 Amendment: New Rules 6A to 6G have been inserted making statutory provisions for admissibility of counter claim. The defendant to enforce an independent right, unconnected with the claim made in the plaint and not intended to be a defence to the claim in the plaint. A counter claim is to be treated, for all purposes for which justice requires it to be so treated, as an independent action. In this case, there is variation to the plaint schedule and counter claim referring to the plaint schedule. The very observation made is very erroneous and fails to take note of the fact that when the land was granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, earlier survey numbers are mentioned and when the phodi work was conducted, new numbers are assigned. But observations are made that the documents and decree engrossed with the schedule varies. The survey
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR number and boundaries are inconsistent to the claim of defendant Nos.1 to 5 compared with revenue documents, exhibited in 'P' series and defence raised by defendant Nos.6 to 11 in oral and documentary evidence. The very observation is also erroneous.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants also brought to the notice of this Court that the defendants have also not disputed the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Ex.D.94 and also even not disputed with regard to the survey numbers are concerned and only changes were made subsequent to the phodi work. The Appellate Court also made an observation that it is apparent in the admissions of P.W.1 to P.W.6 and in the defence evidence. The defendants Nos.1 to 5 claimed counter claim of 1/3rd share. When the Appellate Court made an observation that defendants Nos.1 to 5 are claiming counter claim of 1/3rd share, that is also in the properties which have been mentioned in the schedule itself. When such counter claim is made, the very reasoning of the Appellate Court that it ought to have been made as specific claim is erroneous. The question of making specific claim does not arise when
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR 1/3rd share is claimed and the same has to be considered only at the time of considering the matter at the time of adjudicating the same in a final decree proceedings and not at the stage of claiming 1/3rd share with specific boundaries as observed while remanding the matter invoking Order 41 Rules 23, 23A, 28 and 33 of CPC with regard to the proof of counter claim. When the defendants have made the counter claim in the suit schedule property, specific properties and boundaries need not be necessary as observed by the Appellate Court under Order 8 Rule 6A and B of CPC and the same has to be considered only when apportioning the share of the respective parties, if they succeed in the counter claim made by them and the very approach of the Appellate Court is erroneous and the matter requires to be set aside. The order passed by the Appellate Court in allowing R.A.No.55/2011 and dismissing R.A.No.60/2011 and also setting aside the order passed in O.S.No.127/2002 is erroneous. The matter has to be considered afresh in both the appeals considering the material available on record and adjudicate the matter considering the material already available on record. The reasoning assigned by the Appellate Court in remanding the matter is not sustainable in the eye of law.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25754 MSA No. 24 of 2015 C/W RSA No. 836 of 2015 HC-KAR
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are allowed.
(ii) The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court to consider the matter afresh in view of the observations made by this Court.
(iii) The respective parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 13.08.2025, without expecting any notice from the Appellate Court.
(iv) The Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from 13.08.2025.
(v) The parties and their respective counsel are directed to assist the Appellate Court in disposal of the matter within a time bound period of six months, since the suit is of the year 2002 and the appeals are of the year 2011.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45