SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M. POONACHA, JJ.
Shri Gajendra @ Gajendranath S/o. Gurappa Agasimani - Appellant 
Versus 
Smt. Vidya, W/o. Vittappa Hosamani - Respondent 
Regular First Appeal No. 100408 of 2025 (DEC/INJ-)
Decided on : 03-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SOURABH A. SONDUR &  SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATES

A plaintiff must pursue claims regarding property disputes through ongoing final decree proceedings rather than initiating separate actions, especially when cause of action is contested and overlaps with existing litigation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 - Dismissal of suit for want of cause of action - The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant alleging that it did not disclose a cause of action due to overlapping proceedings in final decree - The appellant contended that the relinquishment deed was executed illegally under coercion, but the legality of that deed is subject to ongoing final decree proceedings. (Paras 9-22)

(B) Principle of Cause of Action - The court held that the plaintiff must seek redress in the pending final decree proceedings rather than filing separate litigation, emphasizing the need to avoid multiplicity and conflicting judgments. (Paras 10-20)

Facts of the case:
The suit was filed by the appellant against the respondents regarding a relinquishment deed executed by their mother, asserting his claim to a share in the properties. Previous judgments established shared interests in these properties amidst ongoing final decree proceedings regarding the release deed.

Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the suit was found justifiable, maintaining the continuity of the final decree proceedings, and no cause of action existed to entertain the separate suit.

Issues: Determined whether there was a valid cause of action when the matter was already in final decree proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that matters regarding the relinquishment deed must be addressed within the final decree context, as proper legal recourse exists therein, thus affirming the trial court’s dismissal.

Result: Appeal disposed without interfering with the trial Court order.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.301/2024 is before this Court, aggrieved by the impugned order on preliminary issue dated 03.07.2025 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Belagavi, [Hereinafter for short ‘trial Court’], whereby the trial Court held/answered the preliminary issue as against the appellant-plaintiff and consequently proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action in favour of the appellant-plaintiff to file and prosecute the suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1. For the order proposed, notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with since both the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1-caveator submits that the matter can be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Both the counsels have produced the records of the trial Court to enable final disposal of the present appeal.

3. The brief facts given raise to the present appeal are as under:

The appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the children of late Gurappa Agasimani and late Smt.Mahadevi. The respondent No.1-Vidya, instituted a suit in O.S.No.182/2018 against her mother Smt.Mahadevi- defendant No.1, her brother Ravindranath-defendant No.3 and Smt.Mangala wife of the appellant-defendant No.4 (formal party) for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs.

4. After contest, the trial Court proceeded to pass a judgment and decree dated 21.01.2020 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1-Vidya, thereby declaring that respondent No.1, the appellant, Smt.Ravindranath and Mahadevi (mother) were entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein approached this Court in RFA No.100275/2020 which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was modified as hereunder:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The plaintiff, the first and the second defendants are declared to have 1/3rd undivided share in the total extent measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Sy Nos

100/2, Sy. No. 100/B Sy. No.100/K, Sy. No.122/6 and Sy No.460/4+15+13+16/A of Hirebagewadi village. The plaintiffs or the first to third defendants are declared to have 1/4th share in the residential property bearing VPC No.219 measuring 2212 square feet in Hirebagewadı village.

There shall be preliminary decree accordingly.

5. It is the matter of record that the appellant approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.6587/2023 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.05.2023, as a result of which the preliminary decree dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in RFA No.100275/2020 was confirmed and the same has attained the finality and became conclusive and binding upon all the parties.

6. Subsequent to disposal of RFA No.100275/2020 on 14.09.2022, the respondent No.1-Smt.Vidya alleged that her mother Smt.Mahadevi executed registered release deed dated 30.09.2022 releasing/relinquishing her undivided share in the suit schedule properties in favour of respondent No.1-Smt.Vidya and her brother respondent No.2- Sri.Ravindranath, pursuant to which they became entitled to the undivided share of Smt.Mahadevi in the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, Smt.Mahadevi expired on 15.12.2022 and on 01.02.2023, the respondent No.1 herein filed FDP No.06/2023 to enforce and implement the preliminary decree passed by this Court and also putting forth the claim in relation to the undivided share of Smt.Mahadevi by placing reliance upon the registered release/relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2022 alleged to have been executed by Smt.Mahadevi in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid final decree proceeding in FDP No.06/2023 which was filed on 01.02.2023, the appellant herein filed the instant suit in OS No.1180/2023 date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top