The decree obtained by the defendant in a previous suit did not operate as res judicata against the plaintiff.

K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant and is directed, against the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1972 of the Principal civil Judge, Tumkur, in R. A. No. 39 of 1967 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1966 of the additional Munsiff, Tiptur, in O. S. No. 595 of 1964.

( 2 ) ON 29-9-1964, the original respondent plaintiff who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, instituted O. S. No. 595 of 1964 for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession of 6 items of agricultural lands detailed in the schedule, to the plaint.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of the plaint schedule properties haying purchased them on 2-7-1945 from one Lingamma, and that the defendant without any manner of right, title and interest there to was trying to interfere with his possession and the same should therefore, be prevented by a permanent injunction,

( 4 ) IN resisting the suit, the defendant denied the allegations mada in the pataint. He pleaded that Lingamma from whom the plaintiff obtained title and possession had no right, title and interest in the plaint schedule properties. He also alleged that the properties originally belonged to one kalaiah and that his wife Chikkamma, who succeeded to the same, had gifted them to him. He asserted that Kalaiah was in possession of the properties and and not the plaintiff.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues and the parties placed oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. By his judgment and decree dated 31-10-1966 the learned Mun- siff found that the plaintiff was in possession, of the properties and not the defendant and the latter was trying to interfere with the possession of the former without any manner of right and accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the defendant before the learned Civil Judge in r. A. No. 39 of 1967.

( 6 ) ON 29-6-1972, the defendant filed this appeal, inter alia urging that the decree obtained by his predecessor in interest against the plaintiff's predecessor in interest in O. S. No. 597 of 1942-43 operates as res judicata. At the hearing of the appeal before venkataramiah, J. (as he then was the defendant prominently urged- the aforesaid ground in respect of items nos. 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties, though such a plea, had not been specifically raised in his written statement or in his first appeal before the learned Civil Judge. On 1-9-1977, His Lordship framed an additional issue as hereunder: whether the plaintiff is barred by the rule of res judicata from contending that Lingamma and her father-in-law had interest in the suit items 1 to 4 in view of the decree passed in O. S. No. 597 of 1942-43 on the file of the Munsiff, tiptur? and directed the learned Munsiff to permit both parties to file their additional pleadings on that issue, record all such evidence that they propose to place on that issue, record his finding on that issue and submit the same to this Court. Before Venkataramiah, j. , as also before me, the defendant has not challenged the decrees of the Courts below in respect of items Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule properties and, therefore, this appeal is confined to the decrees of the Courts below only in respect of items Nos. 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule properties.

( 7 ) IN pursuance of the order of venkataramiah, J-, the parties filed their amended pleadings and examined some more witnesses. On a consideration of the pleadings as amended and the evidence ' placed before him, the learned Munsiff has recorded his finding on 6-3-80 and submitted the same to this Court. As the finding recorded by the learned Munsiff is in favour of the plaintiff, the, defendant has filed his objections to the same challenging the said finding.

( 8 ) AT this stage itself, it is useful ito notice the amended pleadings, the additional evidence pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document