High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal Against Preliminary Decree in Partition Suit — Appellant Fails to Appear or Argue. Court upholds trial court's finding that plaintiff and defendant Nos.2-4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in joint family properties under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, a defendant in a partition suit, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the preliminary decree dated 27.08.2014 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Kolar (itinerating at Mulbagal) in O.S. No. 244/2012. The suit was filed by the first respondent (plaintiff) seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties. The trial court decreed the suit in part, holding that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were each entitled to a 1/4th share in item Nos. 1 to 16 of plaint 'A' schedule properties and plaint 'B' schedule items. The claim for partition in respect of item Nos. 17 and 18 of plaint 'A' schedule was dismissed. The plaintiff was also held entitled to mesne profits from the date of suit till recovery of her share from defendant No. 4. The appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, appealed against this decree. However, when the appeal came up for hearing, the appellant was absent and his counsel was also absent. The court noted that the appeal had been pending and the appellant had not appeared on earlier occasions. The court observed that no grounds were made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The court did not examine the merits of the case due to the appellant's failure to appear and argue.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Order 41 Rule 11 CPC - Section 96 CPC - Appeal filed by defendant against preliminary decree for partition - Appellant absent on multiple hearings and no representation - Court dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as no grounds made out - Held that appeal can be dismissed summarily under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC when appellant fails to appear or argue (Para 2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal against the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession is maintainable and whether the appellant has made out any grounds for interference.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Partition
  • Preliminary Decree
  • Appeal Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
  • Order 41 Rule 11 CPC
  • Section 96 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (03) 29

Regular First Appeal No. 228/2015

2016-03-09

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

Sri K. Venkata Reddy (for appellant - absent)

Sri G.V. Beeranna

Smt. Yeshodamma, Smt. Sonnamma, Smt. Padmamma, Smt. V. Parvathamma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeal against preliminary decree for partition and separate possession.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (defendant) sought to challenge the preliminary decree passed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

Appellant was aggrieved by the preliminary decree holding plaintiff and defendant Nos.2-4 entitled to 1/4th share each in certain properties and awarding mesne profits.

Previous Decisions

Trial court (II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Kolar) passed preliminary decree on 27.08.2014 in O.S. No. 244/2012, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.

Issues

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to appellant's absence?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant and his counsel were absent; no arguments advanced.

Ratio Decidendi

When an appellant fails to appear and argue the appeal, and no grounds are made out for interference, the appeal can be dismissed summarily under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal by a defendant is directed against the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mulabagal. When the appeal was called, the appellant was absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Procedural History

Suit O.S. No. 244/2012 filed by plaintiff (first respondent) for partition and separate possession. Trial court passed preliminary decree on 27.08.2014. Appellant (defendant) filed Regular First Appeal No. 228/2015 on 09.03.2016. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution on same date.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1, Order 41 Rule 11, Order XX Rule 12
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Appointment of Arbitrator in Development Dispute — No Valid Arbitration Agreement Exists as Alleged Agreement Was Never Finalized or Executed by Both Parties.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Injunction in Property Dispute. Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Restraining Alienation of Property Pending Suit Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.