Back
1981 Supreme(Kar) 370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.
Marappa and others —Appellant
Vs.
Thimmegowda and another —Respondent
Second Appeal No. 753 of 1979
Decided on : 03-03-1981
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. C.N. Kamath, for the Appellant
Mr. H.N. Narayan, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a subordinate court is bound to carry out the order or direction of a superior court, and any failure to do so is destructive of the legal and judicial system.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - Property Dispute - Karnataka Stamp Act of 1957 - The court directed the trial court to determine the duty and penalty payable on a document, admit the same in evidence, and afford an opportunity to the parties to place additional evidence. The trial court failed to determine the duty and penalty, collect the same, and admit the document in evidence, resulting in a substantial error of law. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for compliance with the earlier remand order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of a property against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court. The trial court failed to comply with the remand order, resulting in a substantial error of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's failure to determine the duty and penalty payable on a document, collect the same, and admit the document in evidence constituted a substantial error of law.
Issues: The main issue was the trial court's failure to comply with the remand order, resulting in a substantial error of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's failure to carry out the direction of a superior court in letter and spirit was destructive of the legal and judicial system. The court also emphasized that an order or direction of a superior court, whether right or wrong, cannot be ignored by a subordinate court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for compliance with the earlier remand order. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the appeal, and the defendant was ordered to pay or deposit a sum of Rs. 150/- as costs to the plaintiff.
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.--This appeal is by the legal representatives of defendant No. I and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-2.4979 of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 11 of 1978 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1977 of the Munsiff, Doddaballapur in O. S. No. 168 of 1969.
2. On 4-10-49, respondent No. 1/plainiff instituted O. S. No. 168 of 1969 against defendant No. 1 and his brother Hanumantharayappa who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 for recovery of possession of a house bearing No. 53 and vacant site situated at Muppadigatta in Madure Hobi, more fully described in the plaint schedule. He claimed title to the Property under a registered gift deed dated 27-3-1941 executed by his mother-in-law Smt. Hanumakka. He alleged that the defendants were in possession of the game as trespassers without, any manner of right, title and interest and they had not delivered the same when called upon by him to do so.
3. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 denied the gift deed alleged to have been executed by Smt. Hanumakka and the title of the plaintiff to the property. He claimed that it was the ancestral family property of the defendant's and they were in possession of the same for over 50 years. He also alleged that Smt. Hanumakka had executed a document on 26-5-1938 in favour of his mother relinquishing all her rights in her favour and that she had also delivered possession to his mother on the same day, Proceeding further, he stated that the said document has been attested by the plaintiff and he is estopped from denying his title or claiming any title in himself. Alternatively, defendant No. I alleged that he and the other defendant were in continuous and' undisturbed possession and had acquired title by prescription over the said property. He also alleged that the suit was not maintainable and was also barred by time. Defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement adopting the written statement of defendant No, 1 and stating the very things that had been stated by defendant No. 1.
4. On the above pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the suit house belonged to Hanumakka. the mother-in-law of the plaintiff ?
(2) Whether Hanumakka gifted the suit house to the Plaintiff and his wife under the registered gift deed dated 27-3-1941 and put them in possession of the same ?
(3) Whether Hanumakka was staving in the suit house till her death on behalf of the plaintiff and his wife?
(4) Whether defendants are in illegal occupation of the suit house after the death of Hanumakka?
(5) Whether the suit house is the ancestral property of the defendants ?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from denying the defendants' title to the suit house as mentioned in Para 4 of the 1st defendant's written statement ?
(7) Whether the defendants' have acquired title to the suit house by adverse possession over the statutory period ?
(8) Whether the suit in barred by time ?
(9) To what reliefs are the Parties entitled ?
On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the learned Munsiff by his judgment and decree dated 28-3-1974 answered all the material issues against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff filed an appeal in R. A. No. 119 of 1974 before the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, who by his Judgment and decree dated 12-2-1975 allowed the same and remanded the suit to the learned Munsiff for fresh disposal in the light of the directions contained in h1sludament one of which was that he did not permit the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence though he permitted the defendants to do so. Against the said Judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 150 of 1975 before this Court challenging that part of the direction of the learned Civil Judge by which he had precluded him from placing additional evidence. On
