An Appellate Court is statutorily obligated under Order 41 Rule 1 CPC to provide a comprehensive reappreciation of both questions of fact and law for all issues raised, and failing to independently evaluate the evidence constitutes a procedural failure necessitating a remand.

THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 09.06.2026 THIS DAY, THE COURT

PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 7(a), 10, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29 are served and unrepresented. Vide order dated 05.11.2013, notice to respondent Nos.9, 13, 15 to 17, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 27 is dispensed with and notice to respondent Nos.5, 6, 8, 11, 12 is held sufficient and vide order dated 17.03.2014 service of notice to respondent No.7(b) is held sufficient.

2. This second appeal is filed against concurrent finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.1258/1989 and confirming the same in R.A.No.89/2003 and prayed this Court to set aside the judgment passed in O.S.No.1258/1989 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Davanagere as well as R.A.No.89/2003 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere.

3. The factual matrix of case of the plaintiffs before the Court while seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction is that one Bidari Siddappa was the propositus of the family of the plaintiffs. He died on 26.06.1965. He had two wives. First wife is Veeramma, she died on 06.02.1957 prior to the death of Bidari Siddappa. The second wife Basamma died on 22.01.1979. The second wife Basamma died issueless. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of Siddappa through his first wife Veeramma. Hence, the plaintiffs are the owners, who are the sons of the deceased Bidari Siddappa. Since the second wife of Bidari Siddappa died issueless, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased Basamma as per law and these plaintiffs are also legal heirs of Bidari Siddappa, who is the husband of the deceased Basamma.

4. It is contended in the plaint that during the lifetime of Bidari Siddappa, he had effected a partition by means of registered partition deed dated 27.10.1957. The 5th plaintiff was minor as on the date of registered partition. After he attained majority, he filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in O.S.No.15/1966 after the death of Bidari Siddappa. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the partition deed dated 27.10.1957 as a sham and nominal document and not intended to be acted upon. The said suit was decreed in part and the same was challenged by filing a Regular First Appeal by deceased Basamma the 5th plaintiff in R.F.A.Nos.82/1973 and 92/1973 respectively. In R.F.A.No.82/1973, this Court has modified the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge at Bellary in O.S.No.15/1966 and consequently, R.F.A.No.92/1973 has been dismissed subject to modifying the decree passed in R.F.A.No.82/1973. While adjudicating the said R.F.A, this Court held that partition deed dated 27.10.1957 is acted upon and suit schedule properties are the absolute properties of deceased Basamma. When the appeals were pending before this Court, deceased Basamma died on 22.01.1979. The first defendant and his sister Siddamma filed an application in R.F.A.No.92/1973 to bring them on record as legal representatives of deceased Basamma and they are brought on record as legal heirs of Basamma. While bringing defendant No.1 and Siddamma as legal heirs of Basamma, no enquiry was conducted regarding the alleged right of the first defendant and Siddamma. In the said legal Representatives Petition, the first defendant and Siddamma have contented that deceased Basamma has executed gift deed and Will.