The principles of res-judicata were misapplied as the properties in the previous and current suits were distinct, warranting a reassessment of the merits.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in R.A. No.23/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC., Srirangapatna and the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.49/2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Srirangapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

3. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that originally the suit schedule property was owned by Boramma wife of Chikkahonnegowda, who is the aunt of Thimmegowda @ Bundegowda, said Thimmegowda @ Bundegowda is the husband of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and father of plaintiff Nos.3 to 7 and father-in-law of plaintiff No.8. The said Boramma was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a lawful owner as she had acquired the said property in partition effected between her husband's family members. The said Boramma executed a will in favour of the said Thimmegowda @ Bundegowda on 28.02.1968 and bequeathed the suit schedule property in his favour. The said Boramma passed away on 12.10.1968. After her demise, the said Thimmegowda @ Bundegowda became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

4. It is contented that defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.149/1995 against the said Thimmegowda @ Bundegowda. The said suit was dismissed. Defendant No.1 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.14/1999 , the said appeal came to be allowed and set-aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.149/1995 and consequently decreed the suit of defendant No.1 and declared that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the property. It is contented that the boundary mentioned regarding the subject matter of the said suit was incorrect and defendant No.1 has no right, interest over the suit schedule property herein. It is further contended that defendant No.1 is making an attempt to create an illegal document regarding the suit property by colluding with defendant No.2. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for the declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants and the same was acquired by defendant No.2 and his sibling under a registered partition deed dated 26.02.1964. Based on the registered partition deed, Khata was changed in the name of Rame Gowda i.e., defendant No.1 and he was paying the tax of the said property. It is contended that the plaintiff has wrongly furnished incorrect boundaries in the plaint. It is admitted that the defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.149/1995 . The said suit came to be dismissed and thereafter an appeal came to be filed in R.A.No.14/1999 . The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 30.07.2005. Thus, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is also contented that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata and prays to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

'' 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove their ownership, title and possession over the suit schedule property by one Boramma in favour of the one Thimmaiah @Bunde