- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1224 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE MUNISONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V. ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O PATEL SONNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SRI C M NARAYANASWAMY S/O CHIKKAMUNICHINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. SRI ACHALAGURU MATADA NARAYANASWAMY SEVA SAMITHI TRUST, YELIYURU VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A. NO.15055/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2017 PASSED ON IA No.2 IN OS NO.34/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT DEVANAHALLI ALLOWING THE IA No.II FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a)(d) R/W. SEC. 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.15055/2017 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, confirming the order on IA.No.2 dated 05.09.2017 passed in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 O.S.No.34/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction. It is contended that the suit schedule property is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.10 situated at Thammenahalli Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas. It is contended that the plaintiff's grand father, the late Sonnappa, had gifted the property under a registered gift deed dated 18.07.1947, and gift deed was not acted upon nor accepted. It is contended that the plaintiff and his ancestors continued to be in possession and enjoyment of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 the suit schedule property. It is contended that the donor Sonnappa had no absolute right over the suit schedule property, but gifted the same to one Matada Narayanaswamy since the suit schedule property is an ancestral property, and Sonnappa do not have an absolute right. The plaintiff's father, Muniyappa, was alive and had half share in the property. The donee did not acquire any right by virtue of a registered gift deed. It is contended that the Late Narayanawamy (Donee) died about 50 years back without issues, and that after his demise, the property reverted to the plaintiff's ancestors. 4. It is contended that the gift deed dated 18.07.1947 was not absolute, but a conditional one. It is contended that, the defendants are no way related to the donee, late Matada Narayana Swamy. The defendants created false trust and it did not exist during lifetime of donee. It is contended that the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction to declare the title by way of adverse possession regarding the suit schedule property in O.S.No.104/2005 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. The said suit was dismissed, the appeal was preferred in R.A.No.24/2011, and the said appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and the same is pending consideration. It is contended that the defendants intending to knock off the suit schedule property attempted to trespass in the property on 26.12.2015, and thereby cut and remove the eucalyptus trees standing in the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.104/2005 on the file of Learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, seeking relief of declaration to declare the title by way of adverse possession regarding the suit schedule property, and challenged the validity of gift deed dated 18.07.1947. The suit was dismissed. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.24/2011. The said appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has preferred second appeal before this Court. No cause of action arose to file the present suit. It is contended that the doctrine of res-judicata hits the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 6. The defendants filed IA.No.2 under order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) R/w Section 151 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiffs have not stated cause of action for the present suit and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff opposes the said application by filing the objections, reiterating the plaint averments. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, allowed IA.No.2, and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the order passed on IA.No.2 dated 05.09.2017 by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15055/2017 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 04.08.2018. The plaintiff aggrieved, by the order passed on IA.No.2, and the judgment passed in R.A.No.15055/2017, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that there is a cause of action for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. He submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the material placed on record, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order on IA.No.2. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 9. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 10. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.104/2005 for the relief of declaration of title by adverse possession, and challenged the registered gift deed dated 18.07.1947. The trial Court, after a full pledged trial, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 judgment dated 01.04.2011, the plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.104/2005 preferred an appeal in R.A.NO.24/2011. The said appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal, which is pending for consideration. During the pendency of the said appeal, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on the same plea, raised in O.S.No.104/2005. In the said suit, the trial Court has framed the following issue. "Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff's grand father Sonnappa has gifted the suit schedule property in favour of one Narayanaswamy under registered gift deed dated 18.07.1947." 11. The said issue has been answered in the affirmative. The plaintiff has filed a subsequent suit. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the plaintiff has disclosed the cause of action on the basis of a registered gift deed, on 20.01.2025. The plaintiff would - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 not have got the cause of action for the second time on the said document on 26.12.2015, wherein the plaintiff suffered a decree in O.S.No.104/2005. 12. From the perusal of the plaint, it does not disclose the cause of action. The trial Court has rightly allowed the IA.No.2, and recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there is a cause of action to file the second suit, and has rightly observed that the plaintiff cannot split the cause of action, into a part by filing the separate suit. 13. The trial Court has placed the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balasaria Constructions Private Limited V/s. Hanuman Seva Trust and Others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 658 and rightly allowed the application. The first appellate Court, considering the material on record, has rightly dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order on IA.No.2, passed by the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15816 RSA No. 1224 of 2019 question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree, and orders on I.A.No.2 passed by the Courts below, are hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62