The court upheld the principle that previous judgments do not automatically prevent independent claims from being reconsidered in future trials, allowing for additional evidence in a remand situation.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajashekhara Seeri, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1.

2. Defendants are the appellants challenging the Order passed in R.A.No.24/2021 dated 01.09.2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, whereby, the judgment dated 05.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.125/2014 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Hosadurga, dismissing the suit was set-aside and matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for declaration and recovery of possession came to be filed by the contesting respondent No.1-S.T.Chandrashekar and others, in respect of the property mentioned below, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property.’

“Country tiled roofed house situated at Banashankari Street, Kote Extension, Hosadurga Town bearing Asst. No.2284/2250/1851/A and its measures East-West 65 feet and North-South 17 feet and bounded as follows:

East: Road

West: House and Vacant site of Lakshmanappa

North: Remaining portion belongs to plaintiffs

South: Oni.”

4. In the plaint, it is contended that father of plaintiff No.1 by name Thimmaiah made family arrangement and executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the year 1942. The father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 was a minor at that point of time. Therefore, his paternal aunt by name Hanumakka acted as guardian to the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 at the time of execution of the relinquishment deed.

5. In the year 1949, said Hanumakka sold the properties mentioned in the relinquishment deed in favour of one Baguru Hanumanthappa for her family necessities. After lapse of ten years of the said sale, i.e., in the year 1959, mother of plaintiff No.1 viz., Varadakkara Hanumakka purchased the properties sold to Baguru Hanumanthappa under registered sale deed.

6. Thus, mother of the plaintiff No.1 became the owner in possession of the suit property. During her life time, mother of plaintiff No.1 gave consent to the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 to reside in the suit property.

7. When defendant No.2 was elected as Member of Town Municipal Council, Hosadurga, and selected as Vice President, he created some documents with respect to suit properties and got the khatha of the suit property mutated in the name of his father-S.V.Venkateshappa. Based on the said municipality records, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a suit against the mother of the plaintiff No.1 viz., Varadakkara Hanumakka for the relief of permanent injunction. Said suit came to be decreed.

8. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a suit against S.V.Venkateshappa-father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.20/2004 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction with respect to same property. The said suit came to be dismissed and judgment of the Trial Court got concluded in the appeal filed by mother of the plaintiff No.1 and thereafter, plaintiffs have filed the present suit.

9. Defendants opposed the suit on the ground of res judicata among all other counts.

10. Learned Trial Judge after raising necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed R.A.No.24/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga.

12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and allowed the additional evidence to be placed on record and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

13. Operative portion of the judgment of the First Appellate Court reads as under:

“The appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs u/O XLI Rule 1 of CPC is hereby allowed.

Consequently, the order passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosadurga, in O.S.No.125/2014 dated 05.04.2021 is hereby set-aside subject to payme