B CHANDRAVATHI SHETTY Vs. B SEETHARAMA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal involves a short but important questions of law apart from the ones framed by this court while admitting the appeal. The first question is whether the lower appellate court could have disregarded the directions given to it by this court while remanding the matter, on the ground that the said directions are nullity or non-est in the eye of law and secondly, whether a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can go beyond the earlier final decision of its predecessor before remand. These and other related questions call for an answer in this second appeal.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this judgment, briefly stated, are to the effect that the appellants herein, who were the plaintiffs before the trial court in O. S. No. 292/1983, filed the suit the question for permanent injunction against the defendant, who happens to be the brother of the two appellants, and it was the case of the appellants that the items mentioned in suit schedule A belonged to them following their father Loku Shetty executing a well dated 24. 7. 1974 and the appellants, consequent to the bequest made in their favour, took possession of the suit items. As the defendant interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, the appellants were constrained to institute the suit as aforesaid for the relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Seetharama Shetty contested the said suit contending that he has been in possession of 65 cents in S. No. 42/6, 51 cents in S. No. 42/4, 6 cents in S. No. 50/9b, 31 cents in S. No. 50/10 and 7 cents in S. No. 27c/2b and the entire item No. 3 of schedule A properties and the rest of the schedule A were in possession of his brother Vishwanath Shetty. Further, he also claimed the said suit items S. Nos. 42/6 and 42/4 on the basis of a common order passed by the Land Tribunal in his name and also in the name of his father Loku Shetty. He also denied execution of the will by his father and bequeath of the suit item A in favour of the appellants.