The court affirmed that prior decrees are binding under res judicata, preventing re-litigation of settled property rights, and upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit due to lack of evidence and delay.

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore in OS No.4166/2004 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiff dated 23.02.2019.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 and other respondents.

3. The ranks of the parties before the trial court are retained for the sake convenience.

4. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that the plaintiff filed a suit for relief of declaration;

(i) That the act of defendant No.1 in claiming any share in Survey No.73 of Srigandhadakaval, Sunkadakatte village, Magadi Road, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under, sale deed dated 18.01.1963, the decree passed in O.S.No.542/1970 and orders passed in FDP No.39/1982 and also dismissed the suit in OS.No.5244/1988 are 'non est' in law and does not confer any right on the defendant Nos.2 and 3 or their predecessor.

(ii) For declaration that the decree passed in OS No.553/1989 and in OS.No.1466/1992 and related appeals in RFA Nos.79 and 80 of 2002, are not binding on the plaintiff or affecting their interest in any manner in respect of property guidelines of survey No.73, Srigandhadakaval, Sunkadakatte village, Magadi Road, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 8 acres 3 guntas situated in middle of the old survey No.73 fallen to the share of Munichikkaiah and consequential relief of injunction.

5. The contention of the plaintiff is that the dry land bearing survey No.73, Srigandhadakaval village, totally measures 35 acres and 20 guntas belongs to three persons namely (1) Muniswamy S/o. Byriga, (2) Era S/o Doddaiah and (3) Munishami S/o Ramaiah. These persons have divided the lands and middle portion which was fallen to the share of Munishami S/o Ramaiah measuring 14 acres. Munishami’s son Munichikkaiah inherited the said property and Munishami who is son of Ramaiah portioned the said property somewhere in the year 1960. Ramaiah and his brother Kempanna had partitioned their ancestral property in the year 1904-1909. The said Kempanna had a son by name Chikkaveerappa. His wife Poojamma succeeded to the ancestral properties of Chikkaveerappa. After the death of Chikkaveerappa who died issueless, his wife Poojamma sold her share in the joint family properties to her own brother Pillappa, who in turn sold the same to one B.M.Shankarappa under a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1963. The said B.M.Shankarappa is none other than the father of defendants No.2 and 3 herein.

6. It is further contended that the said B.M.Shankarappa filed a suit for partition of his 1/6^th share purchased by him out of 35 acres 20 guntas from Pillappa in O.S.No.542/1970. Munichikkaiah i.e., father of defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.5244/1988 for declaration that the sale deed dated 03.06.1953 executed by Poojamma in favour of her brother Pillappa is a sham document and thereby the decree passed in O.S.No.542/1970 based on the said sale deed is null and void and also sought for permanent injunction. .

7. It is further contented that in pursuance to the judgment and decree in OS No.542/1972 for having decreed the suit and filed FDP No.30/1982 and further RFA No.79 and 80 of 2002 were preferred by Siddaramaiah and the plaintiffs herein. The preliminary decree passed on 10.10.1977 has now become 26 years old and incapable of being executed and the whole process is barred by time. It is al