Subsequent suits challenging a prior consent decree are barred under Order XXIII Rule 3-A of CPC, affirming the principle that such decrees remain effective until set aside in the originating court.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals are preferred by the defendants, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

2. In RSA No.100632/2016, the defendants No.2 to 5, 6-A and defendant No.10 are assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2016 in R.A.No.9/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’], dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013 in O.S.No.104/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’] decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

3. In RSA No.100633/2016, the defendants No.1-b to 1-d, defendant No.2, defendant No.3-a and defendant No.5 are assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2016 in R.A.No.10/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2013 in O.S.No.151/1989 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

5. Facts in nutshell in O.S.No.151/1989 are that, the plaintiff claims to be an adopted son of one Basanagouda (deceased) and Sonawwa – defendant No.7 in O.S.No.151/1989. It is further averred in the plaint that the suit schedule property is the Hindu joint family property consisting of plaintiffs and defendants. It is further averred in the plaint that the original propositus – Ninganagouda had two children namely Ramanagouda and Parasanagouda. Ramanagouda had a son-Linganagouda. Parasanagouda – second son of Linganagouda had three children namely Shivanagouda (father of defendant No.4), Yallappagouda (father of defendant No.6) and Basanagouda (husband of defendant No.7 (Sonawwa) and father of the plaintiff). Defendant No.4a to 4c are the children of defendant No.4. Insofar as the branch of first son – Ramanagouda son of Ninganagouda is that the Ramangaouda had a son namely Linganagouda, who died leaving behind his son Fakiragouda (father of defendant No.1). It is stated that the Fakiragouda had three children namely Parasanagouda (defendant No.1), Ninganagouda (father of defendant No.2) and Vishwanathgouda (defendant No.3). It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant No.7 – Sonawwa had taken the plaintiff in adoption on 12.06.1963 as per the adoption deed which came to be registered on 16.06.1963. It is further stated in the plaint that plaintiff being the adopted son of defendant No.7–Sonawwa and late Basanagouda and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.151/1989 and O.S.No.104/1995 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

6. After service of summons the defendants entered appearance and contested the matter on merits. It is the specific contention of defendant No.1, same was adopted by defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5, that the plaintiff and defendant No.7-Sonawwa had filed suit in O.S.No.45/1966 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. The natural father of the plaintiff repr