Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18554
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SRI FAZULULLA – Appellant
Versus
SMT KHATHUNNISA – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 500 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SHIVARAM R BHAT, SRI VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL, SRI CHANDRAKANTH R PATIL
For the Respondents: SRI R GOPAL
The rectification of property boundaries renders a previously dismissed suit no longer subject to res judicata, creating a new cause of action.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Res Judicata - Plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction dismissed by Trial Court as time-barred; First Appellate Court reversed, stating the suit was in time and not barred by res judicata - Boundaries of the property were rectified by competent authority post earlier litigation - Appellants contended the suit was impermissible and time-barred due to prior judgments. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Finding of the Trial Court - Ownership of the property confirmed but suit dismissed due to findings of boundary discrepancies - Earlier suit related to same property with contested boundaries - Earlier court rules did not conclude definitively on ownership, only on boundaries. (Paras 2-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's suit for declaration of title and injunction related to property bearing assessment number 905, which had been previously dismissed due to boundary discrepancies in earlier suits. (Paras 5-11)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found rectification of the boundary by the competent authority to be valid, providing a new cause of action for the current suit which was instituted in a timely manner and not hit by res judicata. (Paras 12-14)
Issues: The key issues before the court included whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata and whether the suit was time-barred given prior judgments and boundary discrepancies. (Paras 6-8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an earlier dismissal due to unascertained boundaries does not perpetuate as res judicata when subsequent rectification is performed. The cause of action arose anew from the factual changes in boundary determinations. (Paras 15-17)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of plaintiff's original suit due to timing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention of appellants regarding resjudicata based on prior suits. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. establishment of ownership after boundary rectification. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. resolution of resjudicata principle due to boundary rectification. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. judgment affirming the first appellate court's decision. (Para 17) |
| 7. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 18) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the divergent finding in a suit for declaration and injunction. Plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and injunction is dismissed by the Trial Court on the premise that the suit is not in time. The Trial Court also observed that the boundary shown in the suit is similar to the boundary shown in the earlier suit, and in the earlier suit, the Court has come to a conclusion that there is a discrepancy in the boundary.
2. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing assessment No.905 and held that the plaintiff is in possession and the Court also found that the suit is not hit by principle of resjudicata.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal. First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff to be the owner of the property and held that the suit is in time and consequently, decreed the suit. First Appellate Court also held that the second suit filed by the plaintiff is not hit by principle of resjudicata. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the defendants.
4. The appeal was admitted on 20.02.2009 to answer the following substantial question of law:
"In the light of the pronouncement in the case of SULOCHANA AMMA VS. NARAYAN NAIR , reported in AIR 1994 SC 152 , whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that suit is not hit by principles of resjudicata with reference to Ex.D2?"
5. Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants taking through the facts of the case would contend that, earlier, the present respondent had filed a suit against the present appellants in O.S.No.249/1986. The said suit was for injunction in respect of same property and the said suit was decreed. The appeal by the defendants against the said decree was allowed and the suit was dismissed holding that there is a discrepancy in the boundary. Then the present respondents who are the plaintiffs in the earlier suit filed RSA No.682/1983. And the said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court. Thus, it is his contention that the suit filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration and injunction showing the same boundary is impermissible and hit by principle of resjudicata, and that the suit is time barred by limitation.
6. It is further submitted that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction when the present defendants had denied plaintiff's title long back even before the plaintiff filed earlier suit referred to above.
7. On the above said premise, it is urged that the limitation has to start from the date when the present appellants disputed the plaintiff's title and First Appellate Court erred in holding that the cause of action starts after boundary was fixed by Zilla Panchayat. It is also his further submission that earlier, this Court has held that the boundaries shown by the plaintiff are not correct and in view of the discrepancy found in the boundary of the suit property, suit was dismissed. Second suit is filed in respect of the same property showing the same description showing the same boundary, as such First Appellate Court erred in holding that the suit is not hit by principle of resjudicata. He would submit that the boundary shown earlier is already adjudicated to be erroneous, and that being the position, First Appellate Court could not have held that the earlier judgment does not operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit which is filed showing same boun
