Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1869
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
SMT.GANGAVVA GOUDAPPAGOUDA PATIL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 100149 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. CHETAN T LIMBIKAI
For the Respondents: SRI.M.B.KANAVI, SRI.H.R.GUNDAPPA, SRI.RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT
Judicial remand must be justified; unnecessary remand without compelling reasons undermines efficient case resolution.
Headnote:(A) Order XLI of CPC - Remand of matters - The guidelines for remanding matters under the provisions of law are well-established and should not be applied liberally without compelling reasons. The court held that there was no necessity for remanding the matter back to the Trial Court when the First Appellate Court had sufficient grounds to adjudicate on the merits. (Paras 11, 12, 15)
(B) Family Courts Act - Jurisdiction of Family Courts - It was emphasized that the Family Courts should focus on the core issues of the case and should not blindly remand matters without thorough consideration of existing evidence and claims. Failure to consider relevant appeals impacts the judicial process. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought a partition, claiming rights over property after the death of their son. They contended that various wrongful claims were made by other family members.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the First Appellate Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the case unnecessarily, opting instead to uphold the plaintiff's positions.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the second marriage and entitlement to property claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that remand was unnecessary given the capability of the First Appellate Court to deliver a judgment itself based on existing evidence.
Result: The order passed in R.A.No.132/2016 and R.A.No.119/2016 dated 31.07.2020 is set aside and the appeal is restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding partition and claims made by plaintiffs and defendants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments and contentions presented by the parties. (Para 6 , 10) |
| 3. ratio decidendi emphasizing the proper exercise of judicial discretion. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on the appropriateness of remand and jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 5. final ruling and directives for the trial court. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants, who are the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.07.2020 passed in R.A.No.132/2016 clubbed with R.A.No.119/2016, on the file of the I Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in and by which the First Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.227/2011 on the file of the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), allowed R.A.No.132/2016 by remanding the matter back to the Trial Court providing an opportunity to the defendants to file written statement and to contest the matter. Consequent to the allowing of R.A.No.132/2016, the First Appellate Court has dismissed R.A.No.119/2016 without adverting to the merits of the said appeal. It is this order of remand, which is challenged before this Court by the original plaintiffs.
2. The above suit in O.S.No.227/2011 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of 2/4th share in the suit schedule property. It is their case that one Siddanagouda Patil, who was the son of the plaintiffs, was working in South Western Railways, Hubballi-the defendant No.5 in the suit. That the said Siddanagouda Patil suffered from paralysis and died on 24.06.2011 during his service. That the said Siddanagouda Patil was married to defendant No.1 on 16.11.1995. Due to certain irreconcilable differences between the said Siddanagouda and defendant No.1, defendant No.1 left the house in the year 2000. Deceased Siddanagouda Patil and defendant No.1 did not have any children out of their marriage. That the defendant No.1 had filed a petition against the said Siddanagouda Patil in M.C.No.78/2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 and the same was allowed. That during the subsistence of marriage between the said Siddanagouda and defendant No.1, he had contacted second marriage with defendant No.2. That defendant No.2 gave birth to defendant No.3, out of the said marriage. That there were certain complaints filed against defendant No.2 by the plaintiffs, alleging that the defendant No.2 had managed to obtain her name entered as nominee in the records of Life Insurance Policies and also in the service records of Siddanagouda. That taking advantage of her name having been entered as nominee, she was making claim depriving the entitlement of plaintiffs, who are the parents of the said Siddanagouda. Hence, the suit.
3. Written statement was filed by defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4. Defendant No.1 in her written statement admitted the marriage and also the dissolution of marriage. It is contented that the petition filed in MC No.78/2003 for divorce was allowed with a direction to the said Siddanagouda Patil to pay Rs.1,250/- per month as maintenance till her lifetime. A counter claim is also made by defendant No.1 in her written statement. That she has filed execution petition for recovery of maintenance amount. That she has not received maintenance amount after the death of said Siddanagouda Patil and that she required enhancement amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and entitled to have charge over the assets of Siddanagouda Patil, against the payment of maintenance.
4. Defendants No.2 and 3 in their written statement contented that defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Siddanagouda Patil and defendant No.3 is their legitimate child. Therefore defenda
