The court held that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the maintainability of a subsequent suit on the same issues already adjudicated in a prior case.

ORDER :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"(a) To quash/set aside the order dated 05.06.2017 passed by the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District on I.A.Nos.12 & 14 filed by the petitioners i.e. Annexure-A and to allow I.A.No.12 filed by the petitioners under Sections 11 & 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as prayed for and to consequently dismiss the suit in O.S.No.416/1998 filed by the respondents in the court of the I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

(b) To award costs and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Sri.Siddharth Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that respondents filed suit in O.S.No.102/1991 against the petitioners for partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed. The respondents filed regular first appeal which also came to be dismissed holding that the parties have already partitioned the property long back and they are in their respective share. Suppressing the same, O.S.No.416/1998 is filed by the respondents seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the respondents/plaintiffs are the absolute and lawful owners of the suit schedule properties in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the oral partition held in about 1960. It is submitted that the issues involved in O.S.No.102/1991 and the issues in the present suit are one and the same pertaining to the same subject matter of the properties. It is further submitted that in the earlier suit respondents/plaintiffs have shown the larger extent of the properties and now in the schedule, exactly half of the same properties is shown as a suit schedule properties. It is also submitted that the petitioners filed an application in OS.No.416/1998 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') seeking to dismiss the suit on the ground that the later suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs is not maintainable as it is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. However, the trial Court without assigning any proper reasons has come to conclusion that the relief sought in both suits are different and rejected the application. The finding of the trial Court in the earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 on issue No.2 is very clear that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to either partition or for half share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, now he cannot file another suit seeking declaration for the title over the half portion of the properties which is hit by the doctrine of res judicata. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.G.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondents supports the order of the trial Court and submits that in earlier suit in O.S.No.102/1991 the respondents have taken stand that there is no oral partition as claimed and the suit came to be dismissed. The present suit i.e., O.S.No.416/1998 is filed as there was no partition by metes and bounds. It is a clear finding that respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to the half share of the property. Hence, the present suit is filed and maintainable. It is further submitted that the issues involved in both the suits are different. Hence, the later suit being a suit for declaration is required to be tried on its merits and at this stage, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot be ousted on the ground of res judicata. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel