IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment of First Appellate Court should not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, unless there is a substantial question of law.

JUDGMENT :

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. Ranganagouda Patil, the deceased husband of Appellant No. 2 and father of Appellant No. 1 and 3 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are brothers. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are their sisters and Defendant No. 9 is their mother. The father of the Plaintiff Veeranagouda Channappagouda Patil died intestate in the year 1981. According to the Plaintiff, due to a quarrel between him and his father, he shifted to Navalur and started working in Mysore Kirloskar at Sattur 15 years prior to the filing of the suit.

2. The Defendants refuted the claim of the Plaintiff and contended that there was a partition during the life time of their ancestor i.e. Veeranagouda. The Defendants pleaded that the Plaintiff was compensated monetarily in lieu of his share in the joint family properties and he started residing separately.

3. By a judgment dated 16.11.2002, the Third Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad partly decreed the suit. The Plaintiff was granted 1/8th share of the entire suit properties except Block No. 163. A separate inquiry for mesne profits was directed to be conducted during final partition in respect of landed properties and the Tehsildar of the concerned District was directed to effect partition. In so far as house property is concerned, a Court Commissioner was directed to be appointed.

4. The Appellants filed Final Decree Petition No. 11 of 2003 under Order 20 Rule 18 read with Section 151 CPC. Pursuant to an application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, a Commissioner was appointed for partitioning the suit properties. The Commissioner submitted his report to which the Defendants filed their objections. The objections of the Defendants to the report of the Commissioner were rejected by the Trial Court. The final decree petition was allowed in part on 28.11.2012. The Plaintiff was granted 1/8th share in suit Schedule A properties in suit Block No. 5, Harobelawadi village along with mesne profits of Rs. 4,89,350/-. The Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2012. The Second Additional District Judge by a judgment dated 07.08.2015 upheld the judgment and decree passed in final decree proceedings except in respect of Schedule D property. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the Defendants filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court. At the admission stage, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well as final decree proceedings and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to reconsider allotment of shares to each one of the parties in Block No. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the legal representatives of the Plaintiff are before this Court.

5. The contention of the Appellant is that the High Court committed a grave error in interfering with the well-considered judgment of the First Appellate Court. Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court. He further submitted that the First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the judgment. He also argued that the High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court on the basis of facts contrary to the evidence on record.

6. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Defendants argued that the High Court has righty held that the land in Block No. 5 has non-agricultural potentiality and allotment of the entire block No. 5 in favour of the Appellants would cause serious prejudice to the Respondents. He emphasized that the land allotted to the Appellants in Block No. 5 is situated adjacent to a busy road which is not in dispute. He submitted that every judgment of the High Court need not be interfered with by this Court, if justice has been done to the parties. Partition o