Karnataka High Court
Sri.Nagabasappa S/O Karabasappa Betur vs Shekharappa S/O. Karabasappa Betur on 18 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217
RSA No. 100713 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100713 OF 2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGABASAPPA
S/O KARABASAPPA BETUR,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581111.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
1A) TIPPESH S/O NAGABASAPPA BETUR,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
& AGRICULTURE, R/O: HIREKERUR,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111.
1B) SUMA W/O LATE SHIDLINGAPPA BETUR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MRITYUNJAYA NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
1C) SANAT S/O LATE SHIDLINGAPPA BETUR,
Digitally AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
signed by R/O: MRITYUNJAYA NAGAR,
VN RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
BADIGER
SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL
Location:
High MOTHER, MINOR GUARDIAN AND
Court of BEST NEXT FRIEND,
Karnataka, SUMA W/O LATE SHIDLINGAPPA BETUR,
Dharwad
Bench AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MRITYUNJAYA NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
1D) SHIVAYOGI S/O NAGABASAPPA BETUR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
& AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETUR MEDICALS,
VASANTA ROAD, DAVANAGERE.
1E) RUDRESH S/O NAGABASAPPA BETUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217
RSA No. 100713 of 2014
R/O: HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581111.
1F) TIPPAMMA W/O GURUPUTRAPPA
MUCHCHUNDI, AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BEHIND SAVITRAMMA KALYAN MANTAP,
HANGAL,TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
1G) SUVARNA W/O REVANASHIDDAPPA GOVI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAMALAPUR, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.
1H) MUKTAYAMMA W/O LATE NAGABASAPPA
BETUR, AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581111.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHEKHARAPPA S/O. KARABASAPPA BETUR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR,
DIST: HAVERI - 581111.
2. DR. PUTTAPPA A/M HAMPAVVA BETUR
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O. JOSEPHNAGAR, TQ: SAGAR,
DIST: SHIMOGGA - 470001
(CALLING HIMSELF AS DR. PUTTAPPA KARABASAPPA
BETUR)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED ON 12.09.2014 BY
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, IN R.A.NO.21/2013,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE IN O.S.NO.161/2004, DATED 20.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
DISMISSING THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217
RSA No. 100713 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of defendant No.1, under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 in RA No.21 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, (for short 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2013 in OS No.161 of 2004 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short 'Trial Court') decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal as averred in the plaint are that, plaintiff -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 and defendants are brothers. Father of the plaintiff and defendants is the original propositus by name Sri.Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur. It is stated that another brother of the plaintiff and defendants- Murugesh was given in adoption to Sri. Gurusiddappa Betur of Masur village. It is the case of the plaintiff that Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur died during 1996 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants to succeed to the joint family properties. It is stated that defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the joint family as a Karta and during 1992 the plaintiff and defendants temporarily divided the family properties and were enjoying the properties separately. It is further stated that, the defendant No.1 availed loan to install borewell in the item no.1 of the suit schedule property and therefore, the property has been temporarily divided. It is also stated that item Nos.2 to 4 stands in the name of the defendant No.1 and -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 item No.5 stand in the name of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and as such, suit in OS No.161 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.
4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed separate written statement denying the averments.
5. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that, there was a partition amongst the family members on 15.02.1992 pursuant to the execution of Vatni Patra and therefore, contended that as there is already a partition in the family, suit itself is not maintainable. It is also the averment made in the written statement by the defendant No.1 that, defendant No.2 was given in adoption to one Smt. Hampavva W/o. Murageppa -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 Betur as per registered Adoption Deed on 06.08.1959 and therefore, the defendant No.2 is not entitled for share in the joint family properties of Karibasappa Nagabasappa Betur. It is also stated that as per Apsat Vatni Patra, the revenue records have been mutated and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. The defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement and contended that, the defendant No.1 was managing the joint family properties and denied the division of properties during the year 1992. It is also the averment made in the written statement denying the execution of Adoption Deed and same has not been given effect to and as such, the defendant No.2 remained in the family of Karibasappa Nagabasappa Betur and accordingly, sought for share in the suit schedule properties and further supported the claim of the plaintiff.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014
7. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record, has formulated issues for its consideration.
8. In order to establish their case, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 18 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P18. On the other hand, defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 18 documents, which were marked as Exhibit D1 to D18.
9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 20.04.2013 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has filed RA No.21 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record by its judgment -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 and decree dated 12.09.2014, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.161 of 2004. Feeling aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of defendant No.1/appellants preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
10. This Court vide order dated 24.01.2020 has formulated the following substantial questions of law for its consideration.
1) Whether the Court below were legally correct in refusing to consider Ex.D3 the registered adoption deed dated 05.08.1956 on the ground that no rituals have been performed for giving and taking ?
2) Whether the Court below were justified in allowing the claim of the plaintiff as well as defendants that there is a partition in the year 1992 and the parties have acted upon ?-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014
11. I have heard Sri. Avinash Banakar, for the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. S. Karishetty, learned counsel for the respondents.
12. Sri. Avinash Banakar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that, both the courts below failed to consider the registered Adoption Deed dated 05.08.1956, wherein, defendant No.2 was given in adoption to Smt. Hampavva as per Ex.D3- Adoption letter. The finding recorded by the Trial Court that, either of the parties failed to prove the performance of Dattaka ceremony is contrary to law. It is also argued that, the registered Adoption Deed has not been cancelled yet and is in force and therefore, the finding recorded by both the courts below requires to be set aside.
13. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that, both the courts below fail to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 consider the fact that the partition was effected during the year 1992 and pursuant to the same, revenue records have been changed and further plaintiff has constructed house in the allotted land which makes it clear that, the partition amongst the parties to the suit is given effect to and the said aspect of the matter was ignored by both the courts below. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. In order to buttress his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 706 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Gangavva and others vs. Ningavva and others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1667.
14. Per contra, Sri.K.S.Karishetty, learned counsel for the respondenst sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. It is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that, though the defendant No.2 has been given in adoption to Smt. Hampavva, however, the said Adoption Deed was not given effect to and even the adoptee himself, denied the adoption. He also contended that, no adoption ceremony was conducted at the time of adoption and further the defendant No.2 was continued to be a member of joint family of Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur and therefore, contended that, both the courts below have rightly concurred in decreeing the suit.
15. Nextly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that, the Vatni Patra dated 15.02.1992 was prepared as a family arrangement to avail loan from the PLD Bank, and also to drill borewell in the suit schedule property and the said arrangement has been made to develop the schedule properties and accordingly, submitted that there was
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 no division of properties by metes and bounds and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. In order to support his arguments, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doddanarayana Reddy (D) by Lrs and others v. C. Jayarama Reddy (D) by Lrs and others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 649.
16. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers would goes to show that, the plaintiff has filed suit, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in the suit schedule property. In order to understand the relationship between the parties it is relevant to extract the Genealogical Tree of the parties which is reproduced as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur (Dead)
1) Suvarnamma (Dead) wife
2) Suvarnamma (Dead) wife Suvarnamma (Halakatti) Suvarnamma (Kalyani) Wife (dead) Wife (dead) Nagabasappa Murageshappa Puttappa Shekharappa Deft. No.1 Masur Deft No.2 Pltf (Adopted)
17. Perusal of the same would indicate that, the original propositus Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur had two wives namely, Survarnamma (Halakatti) and Suvarnamma (Kalyani). Defendant No.1 and another son-Murugeshappa (who was given adoption) were the children of Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur and Suvarnamma Halakatti. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the children of Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur and Suvarnamma (Kalyani). The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the family
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 as a kartha. It is also the case of the plaintiff that, a temporary family arrangement was made during the year 1992 to avail loan from the bank as well as to develop the suit schedule property. It is also stated that, the defendant No.2 has completed his education and was a Medical Practitioner for more than 30 years, and was continue to be the part of the family of Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur. On the other hand the defendant No.1 stated that there was a partition in the family on 15.02.1992 and same was reduced into Vatni Patra and thereafter, the mutation have been changed. It is also stated by the defendant No.1 that, the defendant. No.2 was given in adoption as per the registered Adoption Deed dated 06.08.1959. On careful examination of the Apsat Vatni Patra- Ex.D1, which makes it clear that there was division of properties amongst the children of Karabasappa Nagabasappa Betur and the plaintiff himself has
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 changed the revenue records pursuant to the vardi made to the revenue authorities. The change in revenue entries has not been questioned by either of the parties and further Item No.5 of the suit schedule property which have been given to the plaintiff and in the said suit schedule property, the plaintiff has constructed the house which makes it clear that, there was a partition in the family and therefore, both the courts below have not properly appreciated Ex.D1- Apsat Vatni Patra and arrived at a wrong conclusion that, there was no partition and the said finding required to be set aside in this appeal. It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, reveals about the division of property. That apart in the event, the defendant No.2 has not been adopted, by Smt. Hampavva W/o. Murageppa Betur, then, the defendant No.2 ought to have challenged the mutation entries and the wardi given to the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 revenue authorities and would have claimed in the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court has committed an error in putting onus on the defendant No.1 to prove that, there is no adoption of defendant No.2 in favour of Smt. Hampavva. Though DW2- Puttappa deposes that, he has not been given adoption, however, the Adoption Deed is a registered document is operating in force and has not been cancelled on account of any reason and same is more than four decades old, which cannot be ignored by this Court. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by Trial Court at paragraphs 15 and 16 of its judgment is incorrect and contrary to record. It is also to be noted that, the Trial Court. Erroneously comes to the conclusion that DW2 has not proved the ceremony of Datta Homa, and the said finding cannot be accepted for the sole reasons that, DW2 is a Medical Practitioner for more than four decades and if at all he has not
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 been adopted, he should have challenged the same and nullify the registered Adoption Deed. In that view of the matter, perusal of Ex.D1-Apsat Vatni Patra and Ex.D3-adoption letter itself makes clear that, there is division of properties in the family of plaintiff and defendants, both the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff have divided the property between themselves, excluding the defendant No.2, who being adopted to the Smt. Hampavva W/o.Murageppa Betur. At this stage, it is relevant to cite paragraphs 15 and 19 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Gangavva (supra), wherein this court stipulated the conditions to prove the Deed of Adoption. Paragraphs 15 and 19 reads as under:
15. Before a presumption could be drawn under the aforesaid provision, to the effect that the adoption has been made in compliance of the provisions of the Act, the conditions stipulated under the said Section have to be fulfilled. The conditions to be fulfilled are:
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014
i) The registered document evidencing adoption should be produced before the Court.
ii) It should be shown that the said document is signed by the person giving the child in adoption.
iii) It should be shown that it is signed by the person taking the child in adoption.
16. Only if the aforesaid all the three conditions are fulfilled, the presumption contemplated under Section 16 of the Act could be drawn. However, the said presumption is a rebuttable presumption. Once the person discharges the aforesaid legal requirements, a presumption is drawn in his favour and it is for the person denying the adoption to lead evidence to rebutt the presumption.
17. In the instant case, the original registered Adoption Deed is produced. It bears the signature of the person taking the child in adoption. But admittedly, it does not bear the signature of the person giving the child in adoption. The essence of adoption is in giving and taking the child in adoption. The said act is to be signified by the person giving and taking the child in adoption by executing the deed of adoption. Then only the factum of adoption is proved. Once the original adoption deed produced did not bear the signature of the person giving in adoption, then the presumption under Section 16 of the Act is not attracted. That is
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 precisely what the Courts below have held. In coming to the said conclusion, they have relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in AIR 1981 BOMBAY 240 in the case of Krishnabai Patil v. Ananda Patil, wherein it has been held as under:
Presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is available only if the document has been executed by both the persons taking the child in adoption and the person giving the boy in adoption. Further, the adoption deed executed only by person taking in adoption, then such presumption under Section 16 is not available.
18. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Courts below committed any illegality in refusing to draw the presumption under Section 16 of the Act.
19. It was next contended that the document is 30 years old and the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is attracted to the facts of the case and therefore the Adoption is proved.
18. Following the declaration of law made by this court, the finding recorded by the Trial Court with regard to nullifying the Adoption Deed is incorrect, which requires to be set aside. It is also to be noted
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 that, as the Vatni Patra (Ex.D1) has been acted upon and plaintiff has constructed house in the portion of the land allotted to his share, which makes it clear that, plaintiff is estoped from claiming share in the suit schedule property. (See. (2020) 9 SCC 706)
19. Though the learned counsel for the respondents argued that, both the courts below have concurrently held against the appellants, herein however, this court is having ample jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by the courts below, if the both the courts below have misconstrued the documents and arrive at a conclusion without assessing evidence on record and therefore the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted.
20. In the case of THULASIDHARA AND ANOTHER v. NARAYANAPPA AND OTHERS reported in
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 (2019) 6 SCC 409, at paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
"7.2 As observed and held by this Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam V. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999)3 SCC 722, in the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being:
(i) Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law;
OR
(ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court;
OR
(iii) Based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. It is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision that if First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. It is further observed that the Trial Court could have decided
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 differently is not a question of law justifying interference in Second Appeal.
7.3. When a substantial question of law can be said to have arisen, has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of Ishwar Dass Jain V. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has specifically observed and held:
10. Under Section 100 CPC, after the 1976 Amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate court without doing so.
11. There are two situations in which interference with findings of fact is permissible. The first one is when material or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered, would have led to an opposite conclusion.
12. The second situation in which interference with findings of fact is permissible is where a finding has been arrived at by the appellate court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible.
13. In either of the above situations, a substantial question of law can arise."
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. SUBRAMANIAN v S RAMASAMY ETC. reported in AIR 2019 SCC 3056, at paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.5 of the judgment, has observed thus:
"8.1. ...As per catena of decisions of this Court, while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and to come to its own conclusion and the High Court cannot set aside the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below when the findings recorded by both the Courts below were on appreciation of evidence. That is exactly what is done by the High Court in the present case while deciding the second appeals, which is not permissible under the law.
8.2. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that as per catena of decisions of this Court and even as provided under Section 100 of the CPC, the Second Appeal would be maintainable only on substantial question of law. The Second Appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. The existence of 'a substantial question of law' is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam, in a second appeal under
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous....
8.3. and 8.4. xxx xxx xxx 8.5. As observed hereinabove, while passing the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has re- appreciated the entire evidence on record as if the High Court was deciding the first appeal. By the impugned Judgment and Order, while exercising the powers under Section 100 of the CPC and on re appreciation of entire evidence on record, the High Court has set aside the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on blending of the suit properties with the joint family properties. The same is wholly impermissible. So far as the facts are concerned, the First Appellate Court is the final court and unless and until the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are found to be manifestly perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court would not be justified in setting aside the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. It is not permissible for the High Court to re appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to its own finding when the findings recorded by the Courts below, more particularly, the First Appellate Court are on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the procedure
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 adopted by the High Court while deciding the Second Appeals, is beyond the scope and ambit of exercise of its powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. High Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to its own finding when the findings recorded by the Courts below, more particularly, the First Appellate Court are on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the High Court while deciding the Second Appeals, is beyond the scope and ambit of exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the CPC."
22. Therefore, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the opinion that, judgment referred to by the learned counsel for respondents is not applicable to the facts on record and the First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the material on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santhosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari reported in AIR 2001 SC 965 and this court is of the opinion that, the judgment and decree passed
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3217 RSA No. 100713 of 2014 by the courts below is suffered from perversity which requires to be interfered in this appeal. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed above favours the defendant No.1/appellants herein. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) Regular Second Appeal is allowed;
ii) Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2014 in RA No.21 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2013 in OS No.161 of 2004 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur are hereby set aside.
iii) Suit is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18