Narayanappa, S/O Nyathappa vs Hanumanthappa, S/O Kalappa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Kar) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Narayanappa, S/O Nyathappa – Appellant
Versus
Hanumanthappa, S/O Kalappa – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri K N Nitish, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri G Balakrishna Shastry, Adv., Sri B R Raghav

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree in R.A.No.108/2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chickballapur.

2. In terms of impugned judgment and decree, the appeal is allowed in part on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellants/ defendants before First Appellate Court to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 before First Appellate Court.

3. First Appellate Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court to recast Issues No.1 to 4 and to provide opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would submit that First Appellate Court could not have remanded the matter by setting aside the entire judgment and decree. Assuming that the respondents/ defendants have made a ground for production of additional documents and made a ground for remanding the matter to enable them to lead evidence, still could have retained the appeal in its file and could have framed the issues and could have permitted the parties to lead evidence and could have secured the findings on those issues.

5. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel would submit that