Ramanchandrappa and Others vs Bandappa and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased the suit schedule land on 02.02.1981 from Smt Thimakka and her sons. Ever since then, they became the absolute owners and are in possession of the same. The defendants having no right, title or interest in the property tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, they filed the instant suit for declaration and injunction.

On suit summons being served, the defendants entered appearance and denied the suit averments. They contended that the sale deed is a sham document. That the plaint schedule property originally belonged to Karuda Rangappa, who had filed a suit in O.S. No. 266/1982, against the plaintiff for declaration and injunction. Rangappa died during the pendency of the suit. Hence, his Legal Representative Smt. Kaduramma i.e., the vendor of the first defendant was brought on record. The suit was partly decreed. The vendor of the property was entitled to half share in the suit property and she was in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.

Aggrieved by the said decree, an appeal was filed in RA. No. 57/1989, which was allowed and the judgment of the lower court was modified holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the half share i.e., 2 acres in the suit land. By suppressing all these facts, the plaintiffs filed a suit, hence the suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata.

Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

"1 Whether the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 proves that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property?

Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged cause of action?

Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that he is possession of 2 acres on land in the suit property as contended in para-8 of written statement?

Whether the suit is barred by res-judicata?

Whether the defendant proves that the suit as brought is not maintainable

What Decree or Order?"

Issue No. 4 and 5 were considered as primary issues. On considering the same, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as being barred by Section-11 of C.P.C., namely the suit was hit by the principles of res-judicata. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was rejected. Hence, the present second appeal.

By the order dated 01.04.2013, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

"Whether both the Courts below, on the admitted facts of the case, had erred in law in holding that the suit was barred by res judicata? 6. The findings recorded by the trial court on the primary issues is that in terms of the declaration made in O.S. No. 266/1982 and R.A. No. 57/1989, the plaintiffs have received half share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, they cannot seek for the same declaration against the defendants therein. Hence, the principles of res-judicata stands applicable. Since the first defendant is claiming right through Kaduramma who is the legal representative of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 266/1982 and since the parties are one and the same, the principles of res-judicata stand applicable.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and examined the records. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is absent. Respondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented.

On hearing the learned counsel, I''am of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. What has been decreed in the previous suit and the first appellate court is that the plaintiff is entitled for half share and the defendants therein are entitled for half share. The defendants therein are the present plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in the earlier suit are said to have sold their half share in favour of the defendants in the present suit. The defendants in the present suit have set-up a claim that their ownership of the property is based on the agreement of sale executed in their favour by the deceased Kaduramma, who is the wife of the original plaintiff in the earlier suit. It is therefore pleaded that the present plaintiff on the strength of the earlier decree has filed the present suit seeking for a declaration against the defendants herein. The defendants herein were not parties to the earlier suit. The subject matter in dispute in both the suits are different. The subject matter in dispute herein is the purported claim of the title by the defendants herein having obtained the same from the plaintiff and his wife in the earlier suit. The present defendant not being a party to the earlier suit and when the cause of action and the subject matter of the suit are different, the finding of the trial court in holding that the present suit is hit by the principles of res-judicata is therefore inappropriate. The principles of res-judicata do not stand applicable to the case on hand since the parties are different, the subject matter is different and the issues being different, the trial court committed an error in misreading the material and evidence on record and answering the issues against the plaintiff Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered by holding that both the courts below erred in law in holding that the suit is barred by the principles of res-judicata. The two issues before the trial court are answered by holding that the suit is not barred by the principles of res-judicata and that the defendants have failed to prove that the suit is not maintainable.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree in R.A. No. 118/1999, dated 26.11.2010, passed by the Fast Track Court-V at Madhugiri and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 231/1993, dated 05.04.1999, passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Madhugin are set-aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to proceed further with regard to answering the other issues in accordance with law. In view of the pendency of the suit since the year 1993, the trial court shall make an endeavor to dispose off the suit by the end of December 2015. The parties to appear before the trial court on 30.03.2015.