& ANR Vs. H.V.Srinivasa  INSC 366 (18 February 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7260-7261 OF 2001 Venkatalakshmamma & Anr.
...Appellant(s) Versus H.V. Srinivasa ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
These appeals have
been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 27th May,
1998 and against order dated 13th October, 2000, passed in the review petition.
We have carefully
perused the impugned judgement as well as the judgements of the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court.
The High Court, in
Paragraph (5) of the impugned judgement, has framed the following two
substantial questions of law:
non-grant of the decree of partition in all items except item 9 to 14, is
correct? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree in respect of the
properties, including items 9 to 14?"
The First Appellate
Court has recorded a finding of fact that the properties in question were not
the joint family properties. Hence, the High Court should have framed ...2/-
-2- a question of law whether the said finding of the First Appellate Court was
perverse or not but no such question of law was framed by it. In the circumstance,
we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and remit the
matter to the High Court for a fresh decision after framing the aforesaid
question of law and any other question(s) of law that may arise in the second
appeal after hearing the parties.
We hope and trust
that the High Court will decide the second appeal expeditiously.
The civil appeals
are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court are set aside.
No order as to costs.
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY]
Pages: 1 2 3