- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100091 OF 2019 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. SHIDDALINGAPPA S/O. KOTEPPA SAKRI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BANKAPUR, (VIRABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE STREET), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SHARNAPPA S/O. SHIVANAND SAKRI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR NEKAR STREET, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI, 3. VISHWANATH S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BANKAPUR, NOW AT GOPANAKOPPA, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. BASAVANTAPPA KYALAKONDA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BAMMANAHALLI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 5. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. MALLANAGOUDA KOTTRAGOUDAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KUNDUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 6. SMT. ANUSUYA @ ANASAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA KYALAKONDA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 R/O: BAMMANAHALLI, TQ. HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 7. SMT. ANNAPURNAVVA W/O. SHEKAPPA VARDI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BENCHALLI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI. 8. SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. SHANKRAPPA HAVANAGI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KUNDUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 9. SMT. SUNITHA W/O. NINGAPPA SOPPIN, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KARAJAGI, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI. 10. KOTEPPA S/O. NINGAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BANKAPUR NEKAR STREET, TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI. 11. REVANASHIDDAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR NEKAR STREET, TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI. 12. UMESH S/O. NINGAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR (BRAHMINGALLI), TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI. 13. MALATESH S/O. NINGAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR (BRAHMINGALLI) TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI. 14. SMT. SAROJA @ SAROJAVVA W/O. SHIVANAND SAKRI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ADHYAPAK NAGAR, (BEHIND VISHWESHWANATH KALIAN MANTAPA) HUBBALLI. 15. SMT. LALITA W/O. FAKKIRESH MALIKERI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: LINGRAJ NAGAR, SHETTAR LAY OUT, HUBBALLI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 16. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SANGAMESHWAR MAMADAPUR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SANTOSHNAGAR, (NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE) HUBBALLI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHAMPADEVI @ CHAMPAVATIDEVI @ CHANNAMMA W/O. CHANNAVASAVSWAMI HULIKANTHEMATH, AGE: 86 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. SHA. BRA. CHANNAMALLIKARJUN, SHIVACHARYASWAMIGALU GURU NEELKANTHA SHIVACHARYASWAMIGALU TENKALAGUDU BRAHANMATH, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: SWAMIJI, R/O: YASALAUR, TQ: SAKALESHAPUR, DIST: HASSAN. 3. SRI GOURISHANKARSWAMI S/O. CHANNAVASAVSWAMI HULIKANTHEMATH, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. SOLDIER, R/O: BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 4. SRI ANANDSWAMI S/O. CHANNAVASAVSWAMI HULIKANTHEMATH, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 5. SRI PANDITARADHYASWAMI S/O. CHANNAVASAVSWAMI HULIKANTHEMATH, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE-BUSINESS, R/O: BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 6. SMT. VISHALAXI W/O. SHANKARAYYA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHIKKAMALLUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. 7. SMT. VANAJAXIDEVI W/O. KAILAS HULIKANTHEMATH, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AIKYA APARTMENT, TARANG BLOCK, 12/1 KALEN AGRAHAR, BEGUR, BENGALURU. 8. SRI BHRAMARISH S/O. KAILAS HULIKANTHEMATH, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: AIKYA APARTMENT, TARANG BLOCK, 12/1 KALEN AGRAHAR, BEGUR, BENGALURU. 9. SMT. SAVANTRAVVA @ SAVAKKA W/O. BASAVARAJ GAJIPUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GOTAGODIKOPPA, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 10. NEELKANTHAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA SAKRI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANKAPUR, (VIRABHADRESHWAR TEMPLE STREET), TQ: SHIGGOAN, DIST: HAVERI. 11. SMT. GIRIJAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ADHYAPAK NAGAR, (BEHIND VISHWESHWANATH KALYAN MANTAPA) HUBBALLI. 12. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. SHARNAPPA ARAMANI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 C/O: S.M. ARAMANI, R/O. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI (NEAR KARNATAKA CIRCLE). 13. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA BILEBAL C/O: RAMAPPA BILEBAL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAVANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, AMARGOL, HUBBALLI. 14. SMT. PREMAVVA W/O. MALLESHAPPA MOGANNAVAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O: SAPTAPUR 2ND CORSS, DHARWAD. 15. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O: BANKAPUR (NEAR ARALELMATH) TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R8; R2 AND R11 – APPEAL STANDS ABATED; R9 AND R13 – SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH; R10 AND R15 – NOTICE SERVED; R12 AND R14 – SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH ORDER 43 RULE 1 UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SHIGGAON, IN R.A.NO.84/2017 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2017 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SHIGGAON, IN O.S.NO.74/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUALITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by defendants No.1 to 16 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2019, passed in R.A.No.84/2017, by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, thereby the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2017, passed in O.S.No.74/2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Shiggaon, is set aside and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 2. For the purpose of convenience, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. The defendants filed the written statement and have taken pleading that the suit is hit by principle of res-judicata. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed seven issues and two additional issues. Additional issue No.1 framed by the trial Court reads as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 “Whether the 9th defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by doctrine of res- judicata?” 4. The trial Court, only on the basis of pleadings, without receiving evidence on this aspect, has held that the suit is hit by principle of res-judicata and accordingly dismissed the suit. 5. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiffs filed appeal in R.A.No.84/2017, before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has observed that the trial Court ought to have considered the principle of res-judicata after receiving evidence. But without receiving evidence it cannot be decided whether the suit is hit by principles of res-judicata or not. Therefore set aside the order passed by the trial Court and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration. This order is under challenge by the defendants in this second appeal. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 7. The defendants have taken many contentions in the written statement and one among is, the suit is barred by res-judicata. In this regard a specific issue is framed and the trial Court has dealt with only on the basis of the pleadings and supporting documents produced along with the written statement. For consideration of the aspect of whether the suit is hit by res-judicata or not, receiving of evidence is necessary. Only on the basis of pleadings in the written statement and the documents annexed thereto, it cannot be decided whether the suit is hit by principles of res- judicata or not. 8. The trial Court considered only the pleadings in the written statement and supporting documents annexed thereto has held that the suit is hit by principles of res-judicata. This approach of the trial Court is not correct. While considering the aspect that the suit is hit by principle of res-judicata as pleaded in the written statement, it requires receiving of evidence in the trial by framing a specific issue on it. The trial Court though has framed an issue in this regard, has not received evidence in this regard. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 Therefore, without receiving evidence straight way the trial Court has proceeded to pass order that the suit his hit by principles of res-judicata. 9. For meeting with the requirement to consider the aspect of res-judicata, the governing factors as enumerated in section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that to say the suit is hit by principles of res-judicata, the same are to be decided after receiving the evidence. Therefore, in this regard the trial Court has committed error in deciding the suit only on the basis of the pleadings, which is correctly rectified by the First Appellate Court and thus remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, which requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the order passed by the First Appellate Court is correct in remanding the case. Therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit on this aspect only and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 10. All contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the trial Court in the suit. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:364 MSA No. 100091 of 2019 11. The appellants/defendants are permitted to take their contentions in the pleadings and may adduce evidence either oral or documentary or both. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23