Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Sri.K.N.Manjunath, S/O Sri.Nanjundappa – Appellant
Versus
Sri.T.Ramanna S/O Late Sri.Thimmappa - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No.2303 of 2023 (PAR/DEC)
Decided On : 10-11-2025
For the Appellant :Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Counsel For Sri.Chethan B, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. H.M. Manjesh, Advocate, Sri.Ananda H.C., Advocate, Sri. Prakash M.H., Advocate
The trial court's failure to provide due process in allowing cross-examination warranted setting aside its decree, emphasizing the need for a fair judicial process.
Headnote:(A) Laws and Procedural Rules - Appeal and Trial Procedure - Court's Role in Ensuring Fairness - The appeal challenges the trial court's judgment and decree for partition, asserting denial of opportunity for cross-examination. Issues included joint family properties and the plaintiff's entitlement. The court emphasized the importance of due process and procedural integrity. (Paras 1-12).
(B) Impleadment and Costs - The court permitted an applicant to be added as a defendant and imposed costs on appellants for procedural lapses. Findings indicate a misstep in trial procedure but emphasized remittal for retrial with directions for timely resolution. (Paras 10-11).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition of properties claimed as joint family assets, with the trial court ruling in their favor amidst procedural disputes concerning cross-examination and impleadment.
Findings of Court:
The appeal is allowed, permitting retrial and imposing a monetary cost on the appellants for their procedural omissions.
Issues: The primary issue is whether the procedural irregularities warrant reversal of the trial court judgment and proper examination of entitlements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the trial court's failure to allow further cross-examination constituted a fundamental procedural error, necessitating a fresh hearing of the case.
Result: Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside and case remitted for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's appeal against partition decree. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. court's procedural analysis and observations. (Para 2 , 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on cross-examination and procedures. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. direction to implead additional defendant. (Para 11) |
| 5. final order and conditions imposed. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
This appeal by the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.10.2023 passed in O.S. NO.660/2012 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said suit filed by the respondent No.10/plaintiff against the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 and remaining defendant Nos.1 to 9 for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule properties was decreed in favour of 10th respondent - plaintiff against the appellants and other defendants for partition, declaration and other reliefs.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.10/plaintiff and learned counsel for the remaining parties and perused the materials on record. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.11 —impleading applicant filed an application - I.A.No.3 seeking impleadment on the ground that he has purchased some of the suit schedule properties from the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025.
4. A perusal of the materials on record, it would indicate that respondent No.10/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking declaration, partition and separate possession and other reliefs against appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and other defendants in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants, the Trial Court framed the following issues.
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 9 are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated 22.09.2005, 27.11.1998, 11.05.1999 and sale deed executed by defendant No.15 in favour of defendant No.16 dated 10.05.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff's share?
4. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 are absolute owners under the panchayath parikath since 1994?
5. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold the suit property in favour of defendants No.11 to 13?
6. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is not properly valued and Court Fee paid is insufficient?
7. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the suit is barred by law of limitation?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
9. What order or decree?"
5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to P.73 were marked on his behalf. It is a matter of record as can be seen through the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court that the appellants - defendant No.10 to 13 partly cross-examined P.W.1 and after having been discharged on the ground of no further cross-examination, P.W.1 was recalled at the instance of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the matter was posted on 16.09.2023. On that day, since the Trial Court refused to accede to the request of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 for grant of time for further cross examination of P.W.1 and posted the matter for arguments and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the respondent No.10 - plaintiff against the defendants. It is also an undisputed fact that after discharging P.W.1 from further cross-examination, the appellants or other defendants did not adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of their defence.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 submits tha
