Vasudeva Mallaya and Others vs Thathadi Naranappaya and Others

We think that the Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the suit is barred by the rule of res judicata. The previous suit O.S. No. 223 of 1896

was one by Radhabai, the 2nd defendant in this suit, against the 1st defendant for the recovery of Rs. 500 out of the purchase-money he owed to

Manjunatra Bandri on account of the sale by Manjunatra to the Ist defendant. A question was raised as to whether the sale to the 1st defendant

was a valid transaction, and this question formed the subject of the 4th issue in O.S. No. 223 of 1896. This might have been a material issue in that

suit but the further question whether the mortgage by the 1st defendant to Subraya was a genuine and valid transaction or a sham or fraudulent one

was not material for the decision of Badhabai''s claim against the 1st defendant. This being the case, the finding on that question cannot bar the

plaintiff''s suit. We reverse the decision of the lower Court and remand the suit for fresh disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result.