Prior judgments granting injunctions inherently carry weight with respect to claims of property ownership, precluding redundant lawsuits.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.M.K.Bhaskaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Gnanesh N. I., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant challenging the validity of the judgment passed in O.S.No.378/2014 whereby the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed which was confirmed in RA No.49/2020. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for bare injunction in respect of the property which is a ‘malige’ and vacant site bearing assessment No.5851/3 measuring 30 x 80 feet situated in Upparabasavanahalli village (Kodicamp) Tarikere Town, Tarikere with following boundaries:

East by: Thatched house of Sikandar Nawaz West by: Property of Sudhakar North by: Railway Track South by: B.H.Road

3.2. Plaintiff claims that he had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2001. Another suit in O.S.No.127/2011 against the municipality. It is his case that he being the owner of the property, defendant No.1 – Sikindhar Nawab Khan started interfering at the first instance.

3.3. During the pendency of the suit, said Sikindhar Nawab Khan sold the property in favour of defendant No.2 – Fairoz Nawaz Khan. It is his further case of the plaintiff that, unable to digest the decree obtained by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 clandestinely sold the property in favour of defendant No.2. After the sale, defendant No.2 started interfering with the suit property and therefore, there was a necessity to file one more suit against the defendants.

4. The suit was resisted and on contest, came to be dismissed.

5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit.

6. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed the present appeal raising following substantial questions of law:

"i. Whether, the judgement and decree passed by the learned judges of the court below is justified in view of the judgement and decree passed in favour the appellant and against the respondents in O.S.No. 207/2001 and O.S.No.

127/2011?

ii. Whether, the judgement and decree passed by the learned judges of the court below against the appellant in the present suit is contrary and inconsistent to the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No. 207/2001 and O.S.No. 127/2011 in between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter will not amount to res judicata?

iii. Whether, the learned judges of the court below have been not considered the clear admission by the 1^st respondent that, by the side of the appellant Eastern site of the respondent the property is not coming and the same is belonged to Municipal Council which has already suffered an order of permanent injunction?

iv. Whether, the courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the right of the respondents as they have not produced any document and proved possession over the said vacant space as contended by them?

v. Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant in view of the above said judgment and decrees by applying the ratio of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in view of the clear title and possession of the appellant over the site?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the plaintiff is already having an order of injunction in O.S.No.207/2001 and 127/2011 against the municipality and the erstwhile defendant No.1.

8. When that being so, in order to somehow disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, def