Second Recent Case From Karnataka HC Where Regular Second Appeal Has Been Disposed Without Framing Substantial Question: SC Stays Judgment

Accordingly, the bench directed the Additional Registrar General, Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court to ascertain whether any substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of the regular Second Appeal. Further directed that if there were any, then to send a copy of the same to the Registry of the Court.

A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while staying the impugned judgment thus observed, “This is the second case coming up from Karnataka High Court in recent times, where the regular Second Appeal has been disposed without framing the substantial question of law as if it is a regular First Appeal”.

“On a reading of the impugned judgment, we find no reference to any substantial question of law being framed or answered though 1 just above paragraph 9, it states ‘Substantial question of law are answered accordingly’”, the bench further noted.

Advocate Chinmay Deshpande appeared for the petitioner.

The matter pertained to a partition suit where the propositus died leaving behind his widow and six children. One of the sons died leaving behind his widow and the defendant-adopted son (the respondent here).

After the death of his father, the defendant claimed that his possession over the suit is constructive. As per the averments made the plaintiff's (petitioner here) family was doing Vaidik profession and also agriculture and he was working in a private factory. Therefore, claiming that he is the sole heir of the propositus, requested the defendant to handover the possession of the properties but he denied.

Pursuant to which, the plaintiff initiated action against the defendant seeking appropriate reliefs. The trial court had framed 9 questions in the matter which were to be adjudicated upon.

On trial of the action, the suit came to be decreed in part. On appeal, the judgment of the trial was confirmed, and therefore the regular second appeal was filed under Section 100 CPC.

A bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani in the second appeal, while partly allowing the appeal, modified the decree of the trial court dated December 2, 2002 holding that the defendant is entitled for 10/4th share in schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and the partition in the other two properties was rejected.

Accordingly, the bench has listed the matter for further hearing on September 22, 2023.

Cause Title: Ramacharya Since Dead By His LRS v. Pralhadacharya Since Dead By His LRS