BASSANNA SINCE DECEASED Vs. BHIMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in these civil appeals is whether a composite appeal filed under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [For short, 'the Code'] 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?

(2.) The predecessor of the appellants [For short, 'the plaintiff'] filed two suits, one for declaration that a registered sale deed executed by one defendant in favour of another was null and void. The other suit was for perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the joint possession of the plaintiff. Both the suits were clubbed together and a common trial was held. The parties thereafter led evidence and by a common judgment dtd. 7/12/1990, both the suits were dismissed. The plaintiff filed a composite appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code raising a challenge to the common judgment rendered in both the suits. Along with the appeal, certified copies of the judgment as well as the decrees passed in both the suits were filed. Court fees payable on two separate appeals were also paid along with the memorandum of appeal. It was prayed that the common judgment of the trial Court dismissing both the suits be set aside and the appeal be allowed. The appellate Court by its judgment dtd. 17/8/2007 allowed the said appeal and decreed both the suits. Two second appeals filed by the defendants were allowed by the High Court of Karnataka [For short, 'the High Court'] on the ground that since two separate suits had been filed before the trial Court, it was necessary for the unsuccessful plaintiff to have filed two separate appeals under Sec. 96 of the Code. Since a composite appeal was filed, the High Court allowed the second appeals and set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court. Consequently, both the suits were dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the High Court gave more importance to the technical requirement of filing of two separate appeals without taking into consideration the fact that the composite appeal as filed was accompanied by certified copies of both the decrees along with requisite court fees required to be paid, assuming that two separate appeals would have been filed. According to him, the trial Court having consolidated both the suits as a result of which parties led common evidence and the suits having been decided by a common judgment, there was no reason, whatsoever, for the High Court to have non-suited the appellants on the technical ground that two separate appeals had not been filed. He further submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court left the appellants remediless inasmuch as the judgment of the first appellate Court allowing the appeals preferred by the appellants was set aside without any further direction. There was no adjudication of the appellants ' claim on merits as the second appeals were allowed on technical grounds. The learned Senior Advocate sought to distinguish the decisions in Mallanna alias Appaiah Vs. Smt. Muninanjamma alias Nanjamma [R.S.A. No.90 of 1996 decided on 12/2/2001] and Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Kerala Agro Seeds [R.F.A. No.554 of 2012 decided on 2/12/2019] that were referred to by the High Court while allowing the second appeals. It was, thus, submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the proceedings be remanded for being decided afresh by the High Court on merits.