IMPORTANT POINT
A decree not appealed against attains finality and operates as res judicata, preventing alteration by subsequent appeals.

JUDGMENT :

The present second appeal is filed by the defendant under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed in RA.No.62/2003 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ranebennur[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘first appellate Court’] and the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2003 passed in O.S No.33/1995 by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & II Additional JMFC, Ranebennur[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’].

2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present appeal are that one Gafarsab Badagi was admittedly the owner of the property measuring 3 acres 3 guntas of land in survey No.21/2, situated in Konanatambagi village, Ranebennur taluk, Haveri District[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’]. The wife of the said Gafarsab Badagi, filed a suit in O.S No.97/94, seeking for a declaration, that consequent to the death of her husband, she is the absolute owner of the suit property and to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit property.

4. One Noorahamadsab Badagi[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘agreement holder’], filed a suit in O.S No.33/95, against the wife and children of the deceased Gafarsab Badagi for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.02.1992. It is the case of the agreement holder that the deceased Dafarsab Badagi as well as his wife and children entered into an agreement of sale deed dated 10.02.1992, seeking to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of ?30,500/-.

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues in the suit for declaration and injunction i.e., in O.S No.97/94[Hereinafter referred to as ‘suit for declaration and injunction’]:

i. “Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of suit property RS-No.21/2C of Konantambigi village in Ranebennur Taluka?

ii. Whether the plaintiff proves she is in actual possession and enjoyment of suit land as on the date of suit?

iii. Whether the defendant proves that he is in actual possession of the suit land since from 10.2.92 under the agreement of sale-deed executed by plaintiff in his-favour?

iv. Whether the Court fee-paid on the plaint is correct?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction?

vi. What order or decree?”

6. The Trial Court had framed the following issues in the suit for specific performance.

i. “Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of suit property RS-No.21/2C of Konantambigi village in Ranebennur Taluka?

ii. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in actual possession and enjoyment of suit land as on the date of suit?

iii. Whether the defendant proves that he is in actual possession of the suit land since from 10.2.92, under the agreement of sale-deed executed by plaintiff in his-favour?

iv. Whether the Court fee paid on the plaint is correct?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction?

vi. What order or decree?”

7. Vide order dated 08.09.1997, passed orders on I.A No.III, the Trial Court clubbed both the suits and recorded common evidence in O.S No.33/95[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit for specific performance’].

8. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 05.07.2003, decreed the suit for declaration and dismissed the suit for specific performance and passed the following order:

“The suit of the plaintiff is decree in OS- No.97/94.

Further it is declared that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. The entries made in the revenue records, is not binding upon them, and it is further ordered that the defendants are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff.

No order as to costs.

Draw the decree accordingly.

In OS-No.33/95:

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. Draw the decree accordingly.

Keep the original Judgment i