-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH MSA No.32/2012 BETWEEN: 1.SMT MUNIVENKATAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS a) SMT VANAJAKSHAMMA D/O N.H.MUNIVENKATAPPA W/O VENUGOPALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NERNAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDURUKARAPANAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 114 b) SMT SHARADAMMA D/O N H MUNIVENAKATAPPA W/O KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O BALAGERE VILLAGE, MADANAHALLI POST, SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101 ... APPELLANTS. (BY SRI G. PAPI REDDY, ADV.) AND : 1.SRI N H MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEAS, R/O NERNAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDURUKARAPANAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 114 -2- 2.SMT VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O NERNAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDURUKARAPANAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TLAUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 114 ... RESPONDENTS. (By SRI KRISHNA MURTHY G. HASYAGAR, ADV. FOR R-2, SRI ABHINAV R, ADV. FOR R-1 ******* THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(u) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.1.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KGF, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 18.1.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KGF, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DISPOSE THE MATTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS. THIS MSA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The order of remand has been challenged in the Misc. Second Appeal on the ground that substantial questions of law have arisen for consideration. It appears, in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein - a decree came to be passed and subsequently the -3respondents have taken a stand that certain properties form part of the Will executed by one Govindappa in favour of his two children which has been discovered belatedly. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the Will is either misconceived or concocted/created document and it should have been verified at the time of trial and decree passed by the trial court. 4. So far as the property which is the subject matter of the decree is not in dispute and an order is passed and only some of the properties form subject matter of the Will. Since the Will was not produced at the appropriate time, particularly, before the Trial Court to oppose the contention to set up a rival claim, to that extent the remand order is restricted and not to the entire extent of the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. Accordingly while making the above clarification, the appeal is disposed of. Both the parties are -4permitted to lead evidence and produce documents in support of their claim. Properties which are covered in O.S.No.304/1984 and 326/1984 are to be saved whereby the order of the Trial Court is confirmed. What is being discovered by way of Will is, the properties which are not subject matter before the Trial Court, would alone be dealt with by the Trial Court and dispose off the matter in accordance with law. The order of remand made by the First Appellate Court to the Trial Court is only to be restricted for dealing with those properties not mentioned earlier but what is mentioned in the Will. SD/JUDGE NG*