Ownership claims must respect prior judgments while new actions can challenge outcomes based on strict procedural adherence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

RSA No.7376/2011 is arising from the concurrent findings in a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit is decreed in part for granting the relief of injunction. The defendants also filed an appeal granting a decree nullifying the compromise decree between the parties. The relief of declaration is denied. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Hence, the defendants are before this Court in Second Appeal.

2. Before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the decree declining the relief of declaration of title. Both the appeals are dismissed. Plaintiff has filed Second Appeal in RSA No.7386/2011.

3. The relief of declaration sought is as under:

(a) The plaintiff be declared that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land as shown in paragraph No.2 of the plaint.

(b) The defendants be perpetually restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as shown in paragraph No.2 of the plaint.

(c) To declare that the decree in O.S.No.122/1999 dated 27.07.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Shahpur is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.

(d) The correction of record of rights in respect of the suit land be made by removing the names of defendants No.1 to 4 and the name of the plaintiff be entered as owner and possessor of the suit land.

4. The declaration of ownership sought by the plaintiff and perpetual injunction as a consequential relief is not granted. However, the declaration is granted to the effect that the decree in O.S.No.122/1999 dated 27.07.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shahpur is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The names of defendants No.1 to 4 are also ordered to be removed in terms of the decree passed by the Trial Court which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

5. RSA No.7376/2011 filed by the defendants was admitted on 19.03.2024 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether both the Courts ignored the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908?

(b) What order or decree?

6. It is noticed that the substantial question of law is not framed in RSA No.7386/2011 filed by the plaintiff.

7. Considering the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that the following substantial questions of law are required to be framed:

(a) Whether the plaintiff/appellant establishes the ownership over the suit property?

(b) Whether the suit of the plaintiff/appellant is not hit by Order IX Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908?

8. The admitted facts are as under:

The plaintiff is the wife of late Shivareddappa Gargol. Defendant No.5 is the brother of Shivareddappa Gargol. Defendant No.5 is issueless. Defendant No.1 is the daughter-in- law of sister of defendant No.5. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is also issueless.

9. O.S.No.122/1999 is filed in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.65 of Boodnur village, Taluk:Shahpur, measuring 13 acres. The said suit is between defendant No.5 and defendants No.1 to 4. In the said suit, a settlement was arrived at among the parties to the said suit and defendant No.5 claims to have relinquished his rights over the property in favour of defendants No.1 to 4. The plaintiff admittedly is not a party to the said suit.

10. The plaintiff filed the suit on the premise that the property bearing Sy.No.65 is allotted to her husband in the partition between defendant No.5 and her husband. Thus, it is her contention that decree in O.S.No.122/1999 is not binding on her on two grounds, namely:

(a) The property did not belong to defendant N