A party who has not appealed a trial court's decree cannot later contest modifications made by an appellate court, as they are deemed not aggrieved.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar A.S., appearing on behalf of Sri C.Parameswarappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri Indra Dhanush M.A., learned counsel for respondent No.30 to 32 and Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 7.

2. Defendant No.3 is the appellant who is challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.508/2006, common judgment in R.A.No.25/2013 and connected two appeal in R.A.Nos.29/2013 and 25/2013.

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

3.1. A suit for partition came to be filed by Smt. Ratnamma against Gopamma and others. Said suit is one for partition and on contest, came to be decreed in part by the trial Court.

4. Operative portion of the judgment of the trial Court reads as under:

“The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in part with respect to the property to Bale Venkataramanappa and excluding the property bearing Sy.Nos.109/1, Sy.No.56 and Sy.No.57.

The Plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share in the property of Bale Venkataramanappa and whatever the transaction held during the pendency of the suit including the Will dated 03.11.1976, are not binding on the plaintiffs 1/4^th share to the extent of property belongs to Bale Venkataramanappa.

Partition shall be effected and 1/4^th share shall be allotted to the plaintiff in the schedule property excluding Sy.No.109/1, Sy.No.56 and Sy.No.57. At the time of effecting the partition, it requires to take note the property already given to the plaintiff and also amount already given to the plaintiff.

Parties shall bear their own cost.”

5. Being aggrieved by the same, two appeals came to be filed before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff Smt. Ratnamma and defendant No.1 Gopamma and others. Defendant No.3 Shobhamma did not choose to file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court nor filed any cross objections.

6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on re-appreciation of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff in part and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

7. Operative portion of the Judgment of the First Appellate Court reads as under.

“The Regular Appeal No.25/2013 filed by the Plaintiffs, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is partly allowed.

The Regular Appeal No.29/2013 filed by the Defendants No.1 and 2, challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is dismissed.

Consequently, the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.508/2006 dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is hereby confirmed and modified and the direction in the Impugned Judgment and Decree that “at the time of effecting the partition, it requires to take note the property already given to the Plaintiff and also amount already given to the Plaintiff”, is hereby quashed and in alternative a direction for accounting is to be made during Final Decree Proceedings.

The parties shall bear their respective costs in this Appeal.”

8. Plaintiff and other defendants did not choose to challenge the order of the First Appellate Court. But it is the defendant No. 3, who did not challenge the decree of the trial Court before the First Appellate Court either by filing a separate appeal or cross objections, is challenging the validity of the order of the First Appellate Court b