BHARMAPPA LAXMAN HUKKERI Vs. RAMA BHIMA SAVADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 57/2009 and 58/2009 which were pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Raibag. Those appeals had arisen out of a common judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 305/1993 and O.S. No. 238/1993 respectively. Appellant in M.S.A. No. 505/2013 is the plaintiff in a suit bearing O.S. No. 238/93 filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. This appellant was the sole defendant in O.S. No. 305/1993. Sri Rama Bheema Savadi, respondent in connected in M.S.A. No. 503/2013 is the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 305/1993. Both these suits have been filed for the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of six items of agricultural lands as described in the schedule appended to the plaint in O.S. No. 305/1993 and house bearing VPC No. 569. Both these suits had been clubbed to record common evidence. Ultimately, O.S. No. 238/1993 came to be decreed and O.S. No. 305/1993 came to be dismissed. As against the said common judgment dated 29.10.2009 regular appeals came to be filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Raibag in R.A. Nos. 57/2009 and 58/2009. Several grounds had been raised in both the appeals challenging the said judgment and decree. Ultimately, both the appeals have been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Raibag with a direction to send the admitted and disputed signatures and thumb impressions of the testator -Rama Bheema Savadi of the alleged Will marked as Ex.D.1 and of Ex.D.44, to the experts at the cost of the appellants. Similarly, direction is also given to send the disputed and admitted signatures and thumb impression found in Ex.D.30 to the experts.

(2.) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, matter has been admitted by framing the following substantial question of law on 18.02.2014.

(3.) FIRST appellate Court has all the trappings of a Civil Court dealing with the original suits. If the first appellate Court comes to the conclusion that a report is required from the hand writing expert as also the finger print expert in regard to the admitted signatures vis   -vis the disputed signatures, admitted LTMs and disputed LTMs, nothing comes in the way of the first appellate Court to send those disputed LTMs and signatures along with admitted LTMs and signatures to the respective experts and solicit a report. Instead of doing so, the first appellate Court has virtually abdicated its responsibility and has remanded the matter to the trial Court to do these works.