Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
V. Srishananda, J.
Mallappa Ramappa Naik - Appellant
Versus
Ittappa Kamappa Banti @ Heggani - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 1811 of 2005
Decided On : 14-08-2020
Ashok R Kalyanashetty, Advocate, P.V. Gunjal, Advocate
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to answer all issues raised in the suit, which was a mandatory duty under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Headnote:
Judgment: [SECOND APPEAL] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 2, Order XX Rule 5] - [The court found that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to answer all issues raised in the suit, which was a mandatory duty under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a directive to hear the arguments on behalf of the parties afresh and dispose of the suit by answering all issues. The Trial Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the suit, aiming for a decision on or before 31.01.2021. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.09.2020 and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed lawful possession of a property granted to their father as Inam, which was vested in the Government after the promulgation of Inam Abolition. The defendants interfered with the plaintiffs' possession, claiming the property was granted to the father of the third defendant. The suit was initially dismissed, but on appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and remanded the suit for fresh disposal. The Trial Court, however, only answered additional issues 4 and 5 and passed judgment, failing to address all issues as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to answer all issues raised in the suit, which was a mandatory duty under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a directive to hear the arguments on behalf of the parties afresh and dispose of the suit by answering all issues. The Trial Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the suit, aiming for a decision on or before 31.01.2021. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.09.2020 and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
Issues: The Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to answer all issues raised in the suit, which was a mandatory duty under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a directive to hear the arguments on behalf of the parties afresh and dispose of the suit by answering all issues. The Trial Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the suit, aiming for a decision on or before 31.01.2021. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.09.2020 and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with a directive to hear the arguments on behalf of the parties afresh and dispose of the suit by answering all issues. The Trial Court was requested to expedite the disposal of the suit, aiming for a decision on or before 31.01.2021. The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 05.09.2020 and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - This second appeal is filed by the appellants, who are defendants 1 to 3 before the Trial Court, questioning the judgment passed in O.S.No.187/1985 dated 30.08.2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court" for short), which was confirmed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gokak (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court" for short) in Regular Appeal No.71/2000 dated 30.07.2005.
2. Germane facts for disposal of this appeal are as under:
The plaintiff contended that Survey No.116 and Block No.384/1 and 384/2 measuring 24 acres 7 guntas (hereinafter referred to as "suit property" for short) was granted to the father of the plaintiffs as Inam as per the order dated 30.04.1996 by the Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal and was vested in the Government after the promulgation of Inam Abolition. After the death of the father of plaintiffs on 14.05.1968, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property as his only legal heirs. It is their further contention that the defendants tried to interfere with the possession suit property claiming that the same was granted to the father of third defendant. Plaintiffs further contended that the suit property was granted to the plaintiffs' father in the year 1966 and the alleged grant of the suit land in favour of the father of the third defendant on 06.07.1978 is null and void. Therefore, they filed suit initially for the relief of injunction and later on it was amended twice and declaratory relief was sought.
On issuance of the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Based on the rival pleadings, trial Court initially raised following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit lands?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove obstruction to their possession and enjoyment of suit lands by defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of injunction prayed for by them?
4. To what order and decree?
Later on the Trail Court also raised the following additional issues vide additional issue no.1 to 4.
1. Do plaintiffs prove that suit land was regranted in the name of their father exclusively under Order No.WRG IV 2129 dated 30-04-1966 of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal? If so, the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal had jurisdiction to regrant the suit land in favour of the father of defendant No.3 on 6-7-78?
2. Whether suit claim declaratory relief is barred by limitation as claimed in additional written statement of defendant No.1 and 2?
3. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
4. Whether the regrant order made in favour of father of defendant No.3 by Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal is null and void?
After hearing the parties, Trial Court dismissed the suit on 24.09.1992. Against an appeal was filed by plaintiffs in R.A.No.40/1992 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Gokak.
After hearing parties and perusal of records, First Appellate Court, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded suit with a direction to afford opportunity to both parties to contest additional issue No.4 and dispose of the suit in accordance with law.
On remand, Trial court raised one more issue as additional issue No.5 as under:
"Whether the defendants prove that they are exclusive owners and in possession of suit lands by virtue of the grant under WTN/PK/CR No.53/1995- 96 dated: 24-7-1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal?"
Further trial was held by affording opportunities to the parties to contest on additional issue No.4 and 5 and decreed the suit by its judgment dated 30.08.2000.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment Defendants 1 to 3, filed a regular appeal on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gokak in R.A.No.71/2000.
First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal on 30.05.2005, confirming the decree passed by Trial Court dated 30.08.2000.
3. Those judg
