- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1719 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O CHIKKA GANGAPPA, @ GANGAPPA, AT PRESENT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TQ. KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: GOPALAPPA S/O.LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, AT PRESENT AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT VALAGERANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MURALI N, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 19.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.183/2010 ON THE FILE OF II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC KOLAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.10/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRINIVASPUR. Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 19.07.2013, passed in R.A.No.183/2010 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondent was the defendant. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration and a permanent injunction with an alternative relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the Sri Gopalappa S/o - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 Muniveerappa. The said Gopalappa, earlier in 1990, for about 15 years, had been in the unauthorised cultivation of the land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.231 of Bangavadi village, and he was a landless poor agricultural labour, who belonged to the schedule caste. Gopalappa filed Form No.50 seeking the regularisation of his occupation regards the suit property before the concerned authority i.e., the Land Grant Committee. The concerned authority conducted a spot inspection, and took steps as per the rules under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and regularized the unauthorised cultivation of the plaintiff’s father-in-law and granted the land on 24.04.1994. Based on the grant order, the name of the plaintiff’s father-in-law was entered in the revenue records. The land has been poded, and revenue Akarabandh is also fixed. The boundary was fixed as per Haddubast. It is contended that the grantee, Gopalappa, was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in 1995. When the neighbour, Venkataramaiah, attempted to trespass - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 into the land of Gopalappa. He filed a suit for a permanent injunction in O.S.No.184/1995 against Venkataramaiah on the file of the learned Munsif Court, Shivamogga, and the said suit was decreed. The land in question was in the peaceful possession of Gopalappa. After his demise, the plaintiff continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in 1998 with the consent of the family members. Venkataramaiah attempted to trespass into the land belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.181/1998 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Shivamogga. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 02.03.1999. Gopalappa i.e., the defendant also filed a suit in O.S.No.143/2000 against Narayanamma i.e., the plaintiff on the file of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Srinivasapur. The said suit was decreed on 19.08.2005 and the appeal was preferred in R.A.No.299/2005 by the plaintiff. The said appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration and a permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or in fact. The defendant is the owner in possession of the suit property. The defendant’s father acquired the same by a grant and the saguvali chit was issued on 17.01.1995It is contended that the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.143/2000 for permanent injunction, and in the said suit, the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff herein over the suit schedule property in 2000. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the suit was decreed. It is contended that the suit is hit by the principles of Res judicata. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the aforementioned pleadings, framed the following issues, and additional issues: Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves her ownership of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves her possession of suit schedule property as on date of suit? 3) Whether there is cause action for this suit? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5) What order or decree? Additional issue No.1: 1) Whether the suit is barred as per Section 11 of CPC? 3.3. The plaintiff to substantiate her case, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1, 3 witnesses were marked as PW.2 to PW.4, and 8 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. Conversely, the defendant was examined as DW.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D13. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 evidence answered issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, and additional issue No.1 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed with costs vide judgment dated 04.11.2010. It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, and the defendant was directed to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property within 2 months from the date of the judgment. The suit of the plaintiff regarding permanent injunction is dismissed with cost. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.183/2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) When the plaintiff has proved her title over the schedule property? 2) Whether the property claimed by the plaintiff and the defendant is one and the same property? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 3) Whether the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata? 4) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the title of the plaintiff and defendant has been considered in the earlier suit O.S.No.143/2000 only to consider the factum of possession of the defendant is erroneous? 5) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court needs to be interfered with? 6) What decree or order? 3.4. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 5 in the affirmative, and point No.6 as per the final order. The appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 19.07.2013. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.10/2006 dated 19.07.2006 was dismissed. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.183/2010, filed this Regular Second Appeal. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 4. This Court, on 25.11.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law : 1) Whether the findings by the First Appellate Court is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence on record or by essentially wrong approach? 2) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is hit by the principles of res judicata. He submits that the trial Court has not recorded a finding in O.S.No.143/2000 regarding the title of the defendant herein in the said suit. Hence, the findings recorded in O.S.No.143/2000 will not come in the way of the instant suit. The First Appellate Court committed an error in considering the findings recorded in O.S.No.143/2000. Hence, he submits that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse, and erroneous. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and to restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.143/2000 claiming that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and the Civil Court has recorded a finding that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2000 in the appeal in R.A.No.299/2005, and the judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.143/2000 was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. He submits that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2000 has attained finality, and the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the principles of Res - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 judicata, and the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Reg. Substantial questions No.1 and 2: Substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 are discussed together as they are interlinked with each other, to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration, a permanent injunction and with an alternative relief of possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father-in- law of the plaintiff was an unauthorised cultivator of the land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.231, and he has filed form No.50 for regularisation of his occupation before the Land Grant Committee. The Land Grant Committee has regularize unauthorized cultivation of the declarate i.e., - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 the plaintiff’s father-in-law and granted land on 24.09.1994. All the revenue records were transferred in the name of grantee i.e., the plaintiff’s father-in-law. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the plaintiff’s father-in-law and the plaintiff had filed a suit against one Venkataramaiah in O.S.No.184/1995 and O.S.No.181/1998 respectively, wherein the Civil Court decreed the said suits. To prove that, the land was granted in favour of the father-in-law of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced the documents i.e., Ex.P1 is the genealogical tree, Ex.P2 is the mutation register extract, Ex.P3 is the RTC extract, Ex.P4 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P5 is the patta receipt book, Ex.P6 is the saguvali chit, Ex.P7 is the resolution, Ex.P8 is the extract of land grant register and Ex.P8(a) is the relevant portion of grant register. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it is suggested that the defendant herein filed a suit in O.S.No.143/2000 claiming that he is the owner in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 possession of the suit schedule property, and the said suit was decreed, and an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.299/2005. The said appeal was dismissed. The said suggestion was not admitted by PW.1. Further, the plaintiff also examined 3 witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, who deposed in the same line of PW.1. On the other hand, the defendant examined himself as DW.1. He stated that the defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by a saguvali chit issued by the revenue authority. It is stated that the defendant has filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.143/2000, and the said suit was decreed. The plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.A.No.299/2005 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2000. The said appeal was dismissed. The defendant denied the title of the plaintiff in 2000 itself. The plaintiff did not choose to file a suit for declaration within 3 years from the date of denial of title. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 11. To prove the defence, the defendant has produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the saguvali chit, Exs.D2 and D3 are the mutation register extracts, Exs.D4 to 7 are the RTC extracts, Ex.D8 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.D9 is a certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.184/1995, Exs.D10 and D11 are the certified copies of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.143/2000, and Exs.D12 and D13 are a certified copies of the judgment and decree in R.A.299/2005. 12. From the perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.143/2000 in Ex. D10, it discloses that the defendant herein has filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming that he is the owner of the suit schedule property under a grant certificate. The Civil Court in O.S.No.143/2000 has recorded a finding that the defendant herein has proved by Ex.P2 therein saguvali chit, and even the western boundary in saguvali chit is not contrary to the plaintiff’s case therein. Admission of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 defendant No.2 therein, in the cross-examination clearly shows that the suit land granted in favour of the plaintiff’s father is bounded on west by land of Subanna as described by the plaintiff therein in the plaint schedule. The grant of 1 acre of the land in Sy.No.231 in favour of the plaintiff’s father is not in dispute. The RTC extract saguvali chit clearly proves that the plaintiff therein is in possession over the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff has proved the boundaries of the suit schedule property except minor discrepancies about describing the survey number as Sy.No.231 instead of 231 Pyaki, and decreed the suit. Further, held that the present plaintiff interfered with the peaceful possession of the property by attempting to trespass. The plaintiff herein, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.143/2000 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.299/2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Kolar. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff herein vide - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 judgment dated 26.03.2007. The findings recorded in O.S.No.143/2010 has attained the finality. The First Appellate Court considering the findings recorded in O.S.No.143/2000, has recorded its finding in para No.19 of its judgment, which reads as follows: “Point No.3: O.S.No.143/2000 was filed by the defendant herein for the relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiff herein had disputed the title of the plaintiff and claimed that the boundaries mentioned by the defendant herein are not correct and the plaintiff herein owned the schedule property mentioned in O.S.No.143/2000. Since the plaintiff herein had disputed the title of the defendant an issue was framed in the earlier suit as to whether the plaintiff i.e. the defendant herein proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property. The said issue was answered in the affirmative holding that the defendant herein is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property. Whatever the contention taken by the plaintiff in the present suit has been taken in the previous suit and therefore the said issue came to be framed and was decided. Though the previous suit was only for the relief of permanent injunction the title issue has been gone into in detail in the previous - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 suit. The parties have adduced evidence with regard to the dispute in respect of the boundary, the extent and survey number granted to the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant herein in the earlier suit has produced the grant certificate issued in favour of his father as per Ex.P.1 which is marked as Ex.D.1 in the present suit and has proved his title. The plaintiff herein had not produced the grant certificate issued in favour of her father-in-law in the previous suit and therefore it was held that defendant herein is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property and the said suit came to be decreed as against the plaintiff herein. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the plaintiff herein in R.A.No.299/2005 which was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 143/2000. The appellate court has also held that the plaintiff did not produce the saguvali chit or grant certificate in favour of her father-in-law and the documents produced by the defendant establishes that he is in possession of 1 acre of land in the same survey number. Further the trial court in O.S.No. 143/2000 had marshelled the facts and evidence at length and has come to conclusion that the plaintiff therein who is the defendant herein has been in possession of the schedule property as absolute owner. Hence even the appellate court has come to the conclusion that the defendant herein is the absolute owner in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 possession of the schedule property. In the present case the plaintiff has also sought for an alternate relief for delivery of possession which has been decreed by the trial court.” 13. The plaintiff cannot contend that she has proved her title by placing the documents and by examining the witnesses, which would have been produced or examined in the earlier suit, and the instant suit is hit by constructive Res judicata, i.e., by Section 11 of the CPC, and the First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has considered relevant evidence placed on record by the parties, and rightly held that the findings recorded in O.S.No.143/2000 has attained the finality. Hence, the First Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. The First Appellate Court was justified in recording its finding that the suit is hit by principles of res judicata, and rightly dismissed the suit. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25931 RSA No. 1719 of 2013 In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions of law No.1 in the negative and substantial question of law No.2 in the affirmative. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.183/2010 dated 19.07.2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Kolar is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2013 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB CT: BHK