IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE 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:

“1)  Whether  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 judgement 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 judgement

and order passed by the High Court are set aside.

No order as to costs.

......................J.       [MARKANDEY KATJU]

......................J.       [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY]

New Delhi, February 18, 2009.