- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.928 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. G.T.VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O LATE G.THIMMAIAH @ THIMMA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. NETRABHINANDANA NAYAKA S/O LATE G T ERANNA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT GARANI VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 124. 3. TEJABHINANDANA NAYAKA S/O LATE G.T.ERANNA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS APPELLANT NO.1 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF GARANI VILLAGE I.D.HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 124. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V. JAVAHAR BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHUBHARANI, W/O J. THIRUNARAYANA AND D/O B.S.RADHAKRISHNA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF IN FRONT OF VENKATARAVANASWAMY TEMPLE MADHUGIRI TOWN-572132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 2. B.R. SHESHADRI S/O B.S. RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.22, 2ND FLOOR, SHANTHI VILAS LAYOUT 5TH MAIN, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 060. 3. GAYATHRI W/O BHOGENDRA AND D/O B.S. RADHAKDRISHANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF KRISHNAPURA VENKATAPURA POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202. 4. SHUBHARANI W/O J. THIRUNARAYANA AND D/O B.S. RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF IN FRONT OF VENKATARAVANASWAMY TEMPLE MADHUGIRI TOWN-572 132 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 5. NAGAMANI W/O HARISHA BABU AND D/O B.S. RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LAKSHMIPALYA VILLAGE AND POST CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-561 227. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 6. PUSHPA D/O B.S. RADHAKRISHNA W/O SAMPATH KUMAR, ARCHAK OF VENKATARAVANA SWAMY TEMPLE NEAR CHANDRASAGARA TEMPLE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF NEAR ASHOKA PILLAR CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU BANASHANKARI III STAGE BENGALURU-560 085. 7. POOJARI DODDAIAH S/O CHIKKAKYATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GARANI VILLAGE I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 124. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE SUIT AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.578/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2023 passed in R.A.No.23/2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2021 passed in O.S.No.578/2012 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri. 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. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of title, and a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 properties. On 13.09.1967, one Thimmaiah had purchased 20 guntas of the land from Chinnappa in the same survey number, and he sold the same extent of land to Girinayaka, S/o Erappa on 19.09.1967. As of the date of the order, and purchase of the said land, Girinayaka was in possession of said land. After his demise, his son G. Thimmaiah was in possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After his death, plaintiff No.1, and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the demise of father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, all the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. During 1999- 2000, one B.S. Thirumalamma, wife of Srinivasachar colluding with revenue authorities behind the back of plaintiffs changed the khatha and pahani in her name, and she is not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. After her death, her son B.S. Radhakrishna, who is the husband of defendant No.1, and father of defendant Nos.2 to 7 sold suit schedule properties in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 favour of defendant No.8 on 28.10.2004 behind the back of the plaintiffs by giving a wrong extent, and boundaries and changed khatha and pahani in his name. The transaction made in favour of defendant No.8 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file the suit for a declaration, and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Summons were issued to the defendants. Despite the service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 6 have remained unrepresented, and were placed exparte. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.7 did not file a written statement. Defendant No.8 filed a written statement, denying the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. It is contended that G.S. Radhakrishna sold the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2004 in favour of defendant No.8, and he is in possession of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that B.S. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 Thirumalamma had filed a suit in O.S.No.96/1980 against G. Thimmaiah, and his brother for the relief of a declaration and a permanent injunction. The suit was partly decreed by granting the relief of permanent injunction. B.S. Thirumalamma filed an appeal in R.A.No.92/1986. The appeal was allowed granting the relief of a declaration. The judgment passed in R.A.No.92/1986 has attained the finality, and the instant suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata. Accordingly, on these grounds, he sought for the dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged interference by the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 28.10.2004 executed by B.S. Radhakrishna in favour of 8th defendant is not binding on them? 4) Whether the defendant No.8 proves that he is the owner in possession and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 enjoyment of suit properties by means of sale deed dated 28.10.2004? 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as claimed? 6) What order or decree? 6. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 47 documents as Exs.P1 to P47. In rebuttal, defendant No.8 was examined as D.W.1, examined one witness as D.W.2, and marked 41 documents as Exs.D1 to D41. The Trial Court after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 02.02.2021. 7. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.23/2021 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 1) Whether the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in a proper perspective manner? 2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree under appeal calls for interference by this Court? 3) Whether the suit is hit by doctrine of resjudicata? 4) What order? 8. The First Appellate Court after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 02.02.2023, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.578/2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, filed this second appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs through virtual mode. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that suit is hit by principle of resjudicata. He submits that in the suit in O.S.No.96/1980, the sale deeds - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 were not set aside. Hence, the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, he submits that findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the records produced by the parties in the suit. Therefore, on these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, and erroneous. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. 12. The schedule property involved in the present suit was the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.96/1980 which was filed by B.S. Thirumalamma against G. Thimmaiah, and others for a declaration and a permanent injunction. The suit was partly decreed by granting the relief of permanent injunction. B.S. Thirumalamma aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for a declaration, filed an appeal in R.A.No.92/1986. The appeal - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 was allowed and the suit for declaration was decreed, and it was declared that B.S. Thirumalamma was owner in possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties except for 6½ guntas in item No.5 of the suit schedule property. The issue involved in this case is already decided in O.S.No.96/1980. The Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the suit is hit by principles of resjudicata. The First Appellate Court, has rightly affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, considering Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.92/1986 as attained its finality. Hence, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as it is hit by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are just and proper, and do not call for any interference. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for my consideration in this appeal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33212 RSA No. 928 of 2023 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgments and decrees passed by Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51