Res judicata does not apply to interim applications; prior rulings in civil proceedings may influence subsequent claims but do not impair the court's ability to address ongoing disputes.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. POONACHA, J.

The present appeal is filed by the plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] challenging the order dated 19.03.2025 passed on IA No.19 in O.S.No.6314/2017 on the file of the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-63), [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’], whereunder IA.No.19 filed by the appellant/plaintiff to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from putting up construction/changing the nature of the suit schedule item No.1 property and/or creating any third party rights, has been rejected.

2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit in OS No.6314/2017 for grant of 1/4^th share in the suit properties as also to hold the Gift Deed dated 16.11.2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, Gift Deed dated 8.2.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, Gift Deeds dated 15.7.2013 and 23.1.2017 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.5 and Release Deed dated 18.1.2017 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, are not binding on the share of the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 4. Defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1/father of the plaintiff entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement contesting the suit. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has filed a separate written statement and made a counter claim claiming 1/4^th share in the suit properties.

4. When the suit was posted for evidence, the plaintiff filed IA.No.19 to restrain defendant Nos.3 to 5 from putting up construction, changing the nature and character and or creating third party interest on item No.1 of suit properties. The said application was opposed by defendant No.3 by filing statement of objections. The Trial Court vide order dated 19.3.2025 dismissed IA.No.19. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

5. Smt.B.G.Nayanatara, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff assailing the order passed by the Trial Court contends that the Trial Court rejected IA.No.19 solely on the ground of res judicata. It is further contended that res judicata is inapplicable to interim applications. It is also contended that defendant No.1 died in the year 2020 and even if item No.1 of the suit properties is construed as self-acquired property of defendant No.1, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has sought suitable reliefs with regard to the Gift Deeds and Release Deed executed by defendant No.1, the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application. It is further contended that the circumstances under which the Gift Deeds and Release Deed have been executed have been in detail averred in the plaint and the plaintiff has sought suitable relief/s in that regard. It is further contended that with regard to the fact that the plaintiff was defendant No.2 in OS No.4222/2012 and the plaintiff having filed a memo in the said suit adopting the stand taken by the father, the circumstances with regard to said aspect of the matter has also been averred in detail in the plaint. That since defendant Nos.3 to 5 are putting up construction in a portion of suit item No.1 property on the basis of the alleged Gift Deed and Release Deed, IA.No.19 has been filed, the relief of which ought to be granted by the Trial Court.

6. Per contra, Sri M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.2