Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff before the trial court. The first suit, O.S. No.14 of 1986, sought a declaration that a registered sale deed executed by one defendant in favour of another in respect of land admeasuring eight acres eleven guntas from Survey No.132/1-A was null and void. The second suit, O.S. No.135 of 1987, sought a permanent injunction restraining a defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of a smaller portion of the same survey number. On an application under Section 151 CPC, the trial court clubbed both suits by order dated 16.06.1988 and recorded common evidence. By a common judgment dated 07.12.1990, the trial court dismissed both suits. The plaintiff then filed a composite appeal under Section 96 CPC, R.A. No.2 of 1991, challenging the common judgment and decrees. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff filed certified copies of both decrees and paid court fees calculated for two separate appeals. The first appellate court allowed the composite appeal by judgment dated 17.08.2007 and decreed both suits, declaring the sale deed not binding and granting permanent injunction. The defendants filed two second appeals under Section 100 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the second appeals on the ground that a single composite appeal was not maintainable and that separate appeals were required against the decrees in two separate suits. The plaintiff, through legal representatives, challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a composite appeal against a common judgment in two suits by the same plaintiff is maintainable under Section 96 CPC. The appellants argued that the trial court had consolidated the suits, common evidence was led, both decrees were challenged, certified copies were filed, and court fees for two appeals were paid; thus, the defect was merely technical and should not have resulted in non-suiting. They contended that the High Court left them remediless without adjudication on merits. The respondents supported the High Court's view that separate appeals were mandatory. The Supreme Court held that the composite appeal was rightly entertained on merits. It observed that the suits had been clubbed, common evidence recorded, both decrees were filed, and court fees for separate appeals were paid. The omission to file separate memoranda was curable and not fatal, especially when the composite appeal was accompanied by both decrees. The High Court's decision setting aside the first appellate court's judgment on the technical ground of a single appeal was erroneous. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the first appellate court's decree, holding that the composite appeal was maintainable.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Maintainability of Composite Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 - A composite appeal filed by same plaintiff against a common judgment in two suits is maintainable when certified copies of both decrees are filed, court fees for two appeals are paid, and common trial was held - The High Court erred in setting aside the first appellate court's judgment on the ground that separate appeals were required - Held that the composite appeal was rightly entertained on merits (Paras 1, 5-8).
B) Civil Procedure - Curable Defects - Non-filing of separate memorandum of appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - Omission to file separate memoranda of appeal is curable and not fatal when composite appeal is accompanied by both decrees and requisite court fees - Non-suiting the appellant on technical ground left appellant remediless without merits adjudication - Held that the High Court should not have set aside the first appellate court's judgment on that ground (Paras 3, 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a common judgment of the trial court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff is maintainable, particularly when certified copies of the decrees passed in both suits were filed, a prayer for dispensing with filing of more than one certified copy was made, and court fees payable for challenging both decrees were paid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the composite appeal was maintainable and was rightly entertained on merits; the High Court erred in setting aside the first appellate court's judgment on the technical ground that two separate appeals were required. The lacuna, if any, was curable and not fatal, and the High Court's order was set aside.
Law Points
- Composite appeal under Section 96 CPC against common judgment in two suits by same plaintiff is maintainable
- defect of not filing separate memorandum of appeal is curable and not fatal
- court should not non-suit litigant on technical ground when substantive requirements satisfied
- payment of court fees for separate appeals and filing of both decrees removes technical obstacle
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (08) 48
Civil Appeal Nos. 9923-9924 of 2026
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sharanagouda Patil
Bassanna since deceased by LRs. and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals challenging the High Court's order setting aside the first appellate court's decree on the ground that a composite appeal against a common judgment in two suits was not maintainable.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of the High Court's judgment and restoration of the first appellate court's decree, alternatively remand for fresh consideration on merits.
Filing Reason
Defendants filed second appeals contending that a single composite appeal against a common judgment in two suits was not maintainable under Section 96 CPC; the High Court accepted this contention and set aside the first appellate court's judgment.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed both suits by common judgment dated 07.12.1990; first appellate court allowed composite appeal and decreed both suits by judgment dated 17.08.2007; High Court allowed the second appeals and dismissed the suits on maintainability ground.
Issues
Whether a composite appeal filed under Section 96 CPC against a common judgment in two suits by the same plaintiff is maintainable when certified copies of both decrees are filed and court fees for separate appeals are paid.
Whether the defect of not filing separate memoranda of appeal is curable and not fatal.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the first appellate court's judgment on a technical ground without adjudicating merits.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The High Court gave undue importance to technical requirement of two separate appeals despite certified copies of both decrees and court fees being filed; the suits were consolidated and common evidence led, so no reason to non-suit on technical ground; the impugned judgment left appellants remediless as no merits adjudication occurred; decisions relied upon by High Court were distinguishable.
Respondent: Separate appeals were necessary under Section 96 CPC; a singular appeal was rightly held not maintainable; the law as followed by High Court was correct; decisions in M/s S.A.L. Steel Limited and Sri Dinesh Poojary supported this view; the view in Mallanna alias Appaiah was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
A composite appeal under Section 96 CPC against a common judgment in two suits by the same plaintiff is maintainable when certified copies of both decrees are filed, court fees for separate appeals are paid, and common trial was held. The omission to file separate memoranda is a curable defect and not fatal. Courts should not non-suit litigants on technical grounds when substantive requirements are substantially complied with.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for consideration in these civil appeals is whether a composite appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raising a challenge to a common judgment of the trial Court rendered in two civil suits filed by the same plaintiff would be maintainable, especially when certified copies of the decrees passed in both the suits were filed along with the said appeal, a prayer for dispensing with filing of more than one certified copy of the common judgment was made and the court fees payable for challenging both the decrees was also paid?
we are of the considered view that the composite appeal preferred for challenging the common judgment of the trial Court deciding two suits filed by the same plaintiff was rightly entertained on merits. The judgment of the first appellate Court could not have been set aside on the ground that two separate appeals had not been filed. In any event, the lacuna, if any, of not filing a separate memorandum of appeal was curable in nature and could not be held to be fatal as the composite appeal was accompanied by both decrees passed by the trial Court.
Though the plaintiff preferred a composite appeal challenging the dismissal of both the suits through a common judgment, the court fees payable on separate appeals raising challenge to the common judgment of the trial Court were paid. A specific prayer seeking setting aside of the common judgment in both the suits was also made. Certified copies of both the decrees were also filed along with the memorandum of appeal.
Procedural History
Two original suits (O.S. No.14 of 1986 and O.S. No.135 of 1987) were filed by the plaintiff. By order dated 16.06.1988, the trial court clubbed the suits and recorded common evidence. The trial court dismissed both suits by common judgment dated 07.12.1990. The plaintiff filed a composite appeal R.A. No.2 of 1991 before the first appellate court. The first appellate court allowed the appeal by judgment dated 17.08.2007 and decreed both suits. The defendants filed two second appeals under Section 100 CPC before the High Court. The High Court allowed the second appeals on the ground that a single composite appeal was not maintainable. The plaintiff (now appellants) filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Section 100, Section 151, Order XLI Rule 1
- Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: Section 24(d), Section 26(c), Section 49
