A compromise decree is binding on the parties and operates as res judicata. A subsequent suit on the same cause of action is not maintainable.

The captioned Regular Second Appeal is filed by the

plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree of the first

appellate court passed in R.A.No.288/2010 wherein the

first appellate court has proceeded to dismiss the suit.

2.

Brief facts leading to the case are that,

appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.30/2009 claiming

his share in the suit schedule property which is open space

bearing No.98/A/SP measuring 5352 sq.ft. and also sought

share in the properties bearing Nos.1080A and 1080B

situated at Amminabhavi village.

3.

The

respondents/defendants

on

receipt

of

summons

tendered

appearance

and

contested

the

proceedings by filing the written statement. The present

respondents/defendants have specifically contended that

present suit is not at all maintainable in view of

compromise decree passed by this court as per Ex.P1

arising

out

of

RFA

No.328/2001.

Therefore,

4

respondents/defendants specifically contended that lis

insofar as item No.1 is concerned, the same is put at rest

in view of full and final settlement between the parties in

terms of compromise decree passed by Lok Adalath in RFA

No.328/2001. Insofar as item Nos.2 and 3 which are

residential houses situated at Amminabhavi village are

concerned, the respondents/defendants did not lay any

claim. They specifically averred that said properties were

never owned by father of the plaintiffs and they are not at

all in existence. It was also contended that item Nos.2 and

3 are not at all in possession of the family. Therefore,

question of effecting partition in item Nos.2 and 3 would

not

arise.

Respondents/defendants

also

specifically

contended that, in view of compromise decree passed in

RFA No.328/2001, the present suit is clearly hit by Section

11 of CPC. The appellant/plaintiff in support of his claim let

in ocular evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and

relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P7.

Respondents/defendants examined defendant No.3 as

5

D.W.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to

D7. The trial court by virtually placing reliance on an

admission given by defendant No.3 who is examined as

D.W.1 has proceeded to decree the suit, thereby awarding

8/49^th share to the present appellant/plaintiff.

4.

The respondents/defendants feeling aggrieved

by the judgment and decree of the trial court preferred an

appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate

court on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

has recorded a categorical finding discarding the contention

of the appellant/plaintiff in regard to existence of open

space in item No.1. The first appellate court has taken

judicial note of last paragraph of the compromise petition

where there is a reference to the open space and the said

open space agreed to be shared jointly by three brothers.

Having taken note of this relevant paragraph, which is part

of the compromise petition, the first appellate court has

come to the conclusion that the allegations of the

6

appellant/plaintiff that he was not aware of the fact that

the family still owned additional extent of 5 guntas, which

was not part of the compromise decree was rejected. The

first appellate court even otherwise was of the view that,

even

if

such

open

space

was

in

existence,

the

appellant/plaintiff being party to the compromise petition

has omitted or waived off his right, if any, in the open

space. Therefore, the first appellate court was of the view

that the present suit for partition is not at all maintainable.

5.

Insofar as item Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the

first appellate court was of the view that, except producing

record of rights, the appellant/plaintiff has not produced

any documents to demonstrate that item Nos.2 and 3 are

also joint family ancestral properties. The first appellate

court was of the view that earlier suit was pending almost

for

14

years

and

there

was

no

claim

made

by

appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, the first appellate court has

7

also declined to grant any relief insofar as item Nos.2 and