The court reaffirmed the principle of res judicata, asserting that earlier judgments in similar property disputes must be honored in subsequent litigation.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.13/2017 by the First Appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.135/2011 by the Trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial Court that the plaintiff got property under relinquishment deed dated 18.04.1998 executed by defendant No.3 by name Annegowda S/o Yalegowda. It is also contended that defendant No.3 has not come forward to register the said relinquishment deed and hence, an appeal was filed before the District Registrar in RAP No.1/41998-99 and as per the direction of the District Registrar, he said relinquishment deed got registered. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2022 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and the said suit was dismissed and the judgment passed in O.S.No.22/2000 was confirmed in R.A.No.89/2003 .

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of execution of relinquishment deed and paying the tax regularly to the Government. The defendants having no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property causing obstructions to the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In pursuance to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed their written statement contending that the plaintiff wrongfully mentioned his name as Javaregowda S/o Puttalakkegowda @ Javaregowda in the cause title. The Javaregowda’s father name is only Javaregowda not Puttalakkegowda. Only with an intention to cheat the defendants, the plaintiff has inserted his father name as Javaregowda @ Puttalakkegowda in the cause title. It is contended that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is contended that the plaintiff has not at all obtained the property under relinquishment deed. Due to ignorance of law and non- availability of documents, O.S.No.22/2000 and R.A.No.89/2003 were dismissed.

5. Defendant No.3 filed separate written statement contending that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has not at all executed the relinquishment deed dated 18.04.1998 in favour of the plaintiff.

6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the plaint and also in the written statement, framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief as sought for?

4. What order or decree?

7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and defendant No.3 examined as DW2 and another two witnesses were examined as DW3 and DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D14. The Trial Court taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and admission on the part of the defendants’ witnesses and also take