Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH, J
Sharanamma W/o. Siddalingappa Bandi – Appellant
Versus
Mallangouda S/o Mahanthagouda Sannasidanagoudar – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5241 OF 2008 (POS-)
For the Appellant :SRI. AAYUSH G. BHAT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SPACE LAW ASSOCIATES, SRI. SURESH P. HULEDAGUDDI, SRI. A.C. PURAD AND SRI. V.B. NADUVINAMANI, ADVOCATES
The principle of res judicata prevents re-litigation of ownership claims already settled in prior judgments, affirming the plaintiff's rights over the property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Plaintiff challenges dismissal of suit regarding ownership of property - Courts below failed to consider earlier judgment in OS No.26 of 1990, which established plaintiff's ownership - Defendants' claims of adverse possession and adoption were not substantiated - The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed. (Paras 1, 8, 15, 17)
(B) Res Judicata - The principle of res judicata applies when a matter has been conclusively settled in a previous suit, preventing re-litigation of the same issue. (Paras 8, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, daughter of Ninganagouda, claims ownership of property after his death, asserting that defendants have no rights due to collusion and illegal mutation. Previous suits were dismissed, but the plaintiff seeks possession based on established ownership. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The courts below misinterpreted evidence and failed to recognize the plaintiff's established ownership from the earlier suit, leading to a miscarriage of justice. (Paras 15, 17)
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit based on prior judgments and the application of res judicata. (Paras 8, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the earlier judgment established the plaintiff's ownership, and the defendants' claims were not proven, thus warranting the appeal's allowance. (Paras 15, 17)
Result: Regular Second Appeal is allowed; the suit is decreed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2008 passed in RA No.11 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2004 passed in OS No.133 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn), Koppal (for short, ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that, Ninganagouda, son of Andanagouda Sanna Siddanagoudar was the father of the plaintiff. The said Ninganagouda died leaving behind the plaintiff, who is the only daughter. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Mahantagouda, who is the son of Gurusiddanagouda (Brother of Ninganagouda). It is the case of the plaintiff that, schedule property belongs to the Ninganagouda-father of the plaintiff and as such, it is stated that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no right in respect of suit schedule property and have changed the revenue entries in collusion with the village accountant. It is also stated that, pursuant to the death of Ninganagouda, the plaintiff succeed to the estate of the Ninganagouda. Plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.26 of 1990 seeking declaration with consequential relief of injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the said suit came to be dismissed on 04.08.1993. It is held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property declined to interfere with the possession of the defendants and as such, the plaintiff filed RA No.113 of 1993 before District Court, Raichur, and in the said appeal, the defendants filed cross-objections and the First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-objection and confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.26 of 1990. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property since the year 1998, after the entry made in the mutation, without the consent of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff filed OS No.133 of 1998 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of possession in respect of suit schedule property.
4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of the defendants that, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration and injunction was dismissed and as such, the defendants have perfected the title by adverse possession, as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable. It is also urged by the defendants that, the father of the plaintiff-Ninganagouda had adopted the defendant No.1 and further executed Will in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 and therefore, contended that, suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. On the other hand, defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and produced 43 documents as Exs.D1 to D43.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.06.2004 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.11 of 2004 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 05.07.2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS No.133 of 1998
