- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1261 OF 2023 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU, S/O RANGANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BOMMANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 128 2. SRI DODDARANGAIAH, S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT BOMMANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 128 3. SRI PRAKASH S/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DINESHWARA NAGARA, MADANAYAKANAPALYA, MADAVARA POST, BANGALORE NORTH - 560 073 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.R. HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 AND: 1. SRI SHIVARAM S/O LATE LAKSHMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI. KANTA S/O LATE LAKSHMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI UMESHA S/O LATE LAKSHMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 RESIDENTS OF ANTHARASANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 106 RANGANNA (SINCE DECEASED ) 4. SRI RAJASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O RANGANNA KEMPANNA DEAD BY LRS 5. SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE KEMPANNA 6. SRI CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 7. SRI CHIKKANRANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O CHIKKANNA 8. SRI MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O CHIKKANNA SHIVANNA DEAD BY HIS LRS 9. SRI PARAMESHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SHIVANNA LOKESHA DEAD BY HIS LRS 10. SMT PAVITHRA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O LOKESHA 11. GOWTHAMI AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O LOKESHA 12. MEGHANA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS D/O LOKESHA THE RESPONDENTS NO.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. PAVITHRA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 13. SRI. GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT G BOMMANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 128 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 TO R10 AND R13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPREENTED; R11 AND R12 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R10) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.06.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.88/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.1091/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Harish Kumar M.R., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No. 4 to 10 and 13 are served and unrepresented. 2. Plaintiffs are before this Court challenging the validity of the judgment dated 14.06.2023 passed in RA No.88/2021 whereby the First Appellate Court modified the decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.1091/2009 in respect of the following suit properties whereby the plaintiffs have been denied the share in suit item Nos.1, 2 and 2(a) and confirmed the decree for the remaining properties: SCHEDULE 1. Land bearing old Sy. No. 3/7, new Sy. No. 3/7B-3 measuring 0.21 guntas, bounded on: East: Land of Kodappa West:Chikkarangaiah North:Girithimmaiah South:Chikkanna 2. Land bearing Sy. No. Old No. 3/8, new Sy. No. 3/8B measuring East-West: 100 feet, North-South: 15 feet, approximately 0.02 guntas, bounded on: East: House of Huchamma West: Passage for flowing waste water - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 North:Passage South:House of Nanjanna 2A. Land bearing Sy. No. Old No. 3/8, new Sy. No. 3/8B measuring 48 x 15 bounded on: East:Well West: Remaining site North: House of Doddathimmappa South:House of Nanjanna 3. Land bearing Sy. No. 3/3, measuring 0.02 guntas, bounded East:Passage for flowing waste water West:Chikkarangaiah's property North:Chikkanna South: Puttamma 4. Land bearing Sy.No.3/8, another block East-West: 16 Gaja, North-South: 27 Gaja, bounded on: East: Nanjanna's property West:Passage for flowing waste water North:Doddaiah's House South:Nanjanna's property 5. Land bearing Sy. No. 3/3, new Sy. No. 3/3D measuring 0.15 guntas, bounded on: East: Chikkarangaiah West:Sanjeevamma's land - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 North:Chikkanna's property South:Govindappa's property. 6. Another block in Sy. No. 3/8 measuring East-West: 50 feet, North-South: 20 feet, bounded on: East:Road West:Site North:Chikkanna South:Nanjanna 7. Land bearing Sy. No. 6, measuring 0.34 guntas, bounded on: East:Chikkarangaiah's Hissa West:Nanjanna's Hissa North:Govindappa's property South: Girithimmaiah's property. 8. Land bearing old Sy. No. 15/4, measuring 0.24 guntas, bounded on: East:Nanjanna's Hissa West: Chikkarangaiah's Hissa North:Chikkanna South:T.R. Lakkanna - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present are as under: 3.1 A suit for partition and separate possession of the property filed seeking 1/3rd share in suit properties by metes and bounds and declared that gift deed dated 14.06.1973 in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma is not binding on the plaintiffs. 3.2 Plaintiffs laid their claim stating that common prepositus Kempanna had three sons by name Chikka Rangappa, Rangaswamaiah and Nanjanna. Kempanna divided the ancestral and joint family properties under registered partition deed 07.09.1964 and thereafter the sharers enjoyed the respective properties as per the said partition as absolute owners. 3.3 Suit properties fell to the share of Rangaswamaiah who is the second son of Kempanna and father of defendants No.1, 3 and 5 and grandfather of defendant No.11. Rangaswamy and his wife Smt. Chikka - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 Rangamma having expired, their five sons namely defendants No.1, 3, 5, 8 and 11 succeeded to the property. First plaintiff and second defendant are the sons of Ranganna - the first defendant. Plaintiff No.2 and Plaintiff No.3 and fourth defendant are sons of Kempanna. Father of defendant No.11, namely Chikka Rangappa and his mother also died leaving behind defendant No.11 as only legal heir. Defendants No.6 and 7 are the sons of defendant No.5 and defendants No.9 and 10 are the sons of defendant No.8. 3.4 Suit properties according to the plaintiffs are the joint family properties of defendants No.1 to 11 as such, plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession of the suit properties. 3.5 It is further contended that first plaintiff is working in KSRTC, Bangalore for several years and second plaintiff is also carrying on his business at Seetakal Palya Village and they are eking out his livelihood. Third plaintiff - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 is again residing in Bangalore working in a private factory for several years. 3.6 When the matter stood thus, suit item Nos.1, 2 and 2(A) being the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 11, grandfather of the plaintiff namely Rangaswamaiah had executed a gift deed in favour of one Smt. Lakshmamma. Said Smt. Lakshmamma and her husband Lakshmana Swamy colluding with each other got concocted and created the alleged gift deed. Smt. lakshmamma and Lakshmana Swamy have thus got fraudulently executed gift deed in their favour from Rangaswamaiah which would not bind the rights of the plaintiffs. 4. Pursuant to the suits summons, defendants No.12 to 14 appeared before the Court and filed written statement. They contended that suit is not maintainable and though relationship is admitted to be true and they maintained that the suit properties are not the joint family - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 11 and they also denied the fact of plaintiffs being in joint possession of the suit property. 5. These defendants also contended that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment in respect of suit item Nos.1, 2 and 2(A) by virtue of the gift deed executed by Rangaswamaiah and sought for dismissal of the suit only in respect of those properties. 6. Defendant No.12 filed an additional written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and validity in O.S.No.492/1996 and it was subject matter of the first appeal before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.75/2001 which finally attained its' finality in RSA No.3489/2006 before this Court and thus, the question of reconsideration of the validity of the gift deed in the suit by the plaintiff is would not arise at all and sought for the dismissal of the suit in respect of suit items No.1, 2 and 2(A). - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting 1/42nd share to each of the plaintiffs in all the suit properties. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants namely Shivaram, Kantha and Umesh who were defendants No.11 to 3 before the Trial Court filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.88/2021. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and re-appreciated the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in respect of the gift deed executed by Sri. Rangaswamaiah in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma in respect of suit items No.1, 2 and 2(A) and taking note to the fact that the validity of the gift deed was subject matter of subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.492/1996 which attained its' finality in R.S.A.No.3489/2006 and denied the share of the plaintiffs in respect of suit items No.1, 2 and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 2(A) and modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to that extent. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law : GROUNDS: The impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate courts is opposed to law, facts and evidence in the case. The lower appellate court has failed to consider both oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and has failed to draw proper inferences from admitted and proved facts and those drawn are erroneous. The lower appellate court having condoned the delay in filing the cross-appeal filed by the appellants, has erred in law in holding that the cross-appeal filed by them does not sustain. The suit filed by father of the respondents was for permanent injunction in O S No.492/1996, there was no issue framed as to the validity of the gift deed dated 14.6.1973, the present suit is for declaration and for partition and separate possession of share of the appellants in respect of the suit schedule properties, in OS No.492/1996 the gift deed is stated to have been - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 proved on the basis of the alleged admission of the defendants there, the appellants were not parties to either the gift deed or to suit O S No.492/1996. In the circumstances, the principles of res judicata does not apply to the suit filed by the appellants. The contrary view taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous. As held in 2013(4) KCCR 3112 between T Narayana Vs., Rangaswamy since deceased by his LRs. & others, that "A CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 SECTION 11-Res judicata - Essentials of Held, the following are the essentials of res judicata- That the litigating parties must be the same; That the subject matter of the suit also must be identical. That the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and That the suit must be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction". Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit filed by the appellants is hit by principles of res judicata. If the suit is not hit by the principles of res judicata, the validity of gift deed ought to have been gone into based on the contentions raised by the appellants that the gift deed was not acted upon, possession was never handed over, all the plaintiffs and defendants have been in joint possession and enjoyment of all the suit schedule properties, the grand father of the plaintiffs and father of defendants No.1, 2, 5 & 6 had absolutely no exclusive right, title, interest much less possession over the suit - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 item Nos.1, 2 & 2A, grandfather of the respondents i.e. Rangaswamaiah, his daughter Lakshmamma and her husband Lakshmanaswamy colluded each other, got concocted and created a document alleged to be Gift deed in favour of Lakshmamma, got fraudulently transferred the revenue records in respect thereof. These aspects having not gone into by the trial Court, at the most, the matter could have been remanded to the trial court. Not doing so, the lower appellate court has erred in allowing the regular appeal. The lower appellate court has erred in law in holding that Rangaswamaiah was entitled to execute the Gift deed under Sections 253 & 254 of Hindu Customary Law. There is nothing to show that the gift deed was executed for discharge of antecedent debt or legal necessity or for the benefit of the family or it was for fulfillment of an antenuptial promise made on the occasion of settlement of terms of marriage. The lower appellate court passed the impugned order on assumptions and presumptions in the absence of materials in support thereof. The lower appellate court has erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the prayer of the appellants in respect of Items No.1, 2 & 2A is time barred. The appellants have contended that they have come to know the fraudulent transaction in respect of the Item Nos. 1, 2 & 2A only on 20.11.2009. The trial court has correctly held that in the absence of the materials made available by the appellants in their written statement, the issuer relating to res judicata is - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 answered in the negative. The lower appellate court has erred in answering the said issue in the affirmative. It is not in dispute that Rangaswamaiah, the propositus acquired the suit schedule properties in a family partition and the suit schedule properties were ancestral properties at his hand and therefore all the plaintiffs and the defendants have got right over the suit schedule properties and the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit. The lower appellate court has seriously erred in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial court. The lower appellate court has erred in law in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is liable to be set aside and that of the trial court to be restored. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW (1) Whether the lower appellate court has erred in law in holding that the cross-appeal filed by the appellants does not sustain, having allowed I A No.I for condonation of delay? (2) Whether the lower appellate court has erred in law in holding that the suit filed by the appellants is hit by the principles of res judicata, when the suit in O S No.492/1996 was for permanent injunction and the present suit is for declaration, partition and separate - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 possession, the appellants were not parties to either the Gift Deed or the above suit, the Gift deed dated 14.6.1973 is said to have been proved on the basis of the admission made by the defendants therein, therefore the ingredients of Section 11 C PC as summarized in 2013(4) KCCR 3112 are not fulfilled? (3) Admittedly, Rangaswamaiah, the propositus acquired the suit schedule properties under a family partition, the said properties were ancestral properties at his hand, whether the lower appellate court has erred in holding that he was entitled to alienate the ancestral properties by execution of the Gift deed? (4) Whether the lower appellate court has erred in law in dealing with the validity of the Gift Deed dated 14.6.1973, when the trial court has not gone into it considering all the contentions raised by the appellants, thereby the lower appellate court could have remanded the matter for decision afresh by the trial Court? (5) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is perverse and capricious in not considering all the materials and not allowing the appellants to substantiate their contentions with regard to the Gift Deed in favour of respondents? 11. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Harish Kumar M.R. reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the First - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 Appellate Court failed to note that the gift deed executed by Sri. Rangaswamaiah in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma was a fraudulent document. Therefore learned Trial Judge has rightly take a note of the same and decreed in suit of the plaintiff in respect of the all items of the suit properties. But First Appellate Court has ignored the same and wrongly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of suit items No.1, 2 and 2(A) resulting in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 12. Per contra, Sri. M.B. Chandrachooda appearing for the contesting respondents No.1 to 3, vehemently contended that issue as to the validity of the gift deed was subject matter of the earlier ground of litigation between the parties wherein father of the plaintiffs was a party in O.S.No.492/1996 which attained its' finality in R.S.A.No.3489/2006. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 13. Therefore, the question of validity of the gift deed could not have been re-agitated by the plaintiffs as they were bound by the decree that was suffered by the their father in the earlier litigation. As such, the learned judge in the First Appellate Court considering the said aspect of the matter denying the share of the plaintiffs in items No.1, 2 and 2(A) of the suit properties is thus valid and does not required any further interference in this appeal by this Court and sought for dismissal of appeal. 14. Having heard the arguments of both side, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of material on record, the entire gamut of the present appeal wood surround itself with regard to the validity of the gift deed executed by Sri. Rangaswamaiah in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma. 16. Admittedly, a suit in O.S. No.492/1996 came to be filed with regard to the validity of the gift deed which attained its' finality in RSA No.3489/2006 before this - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 Court. Pertinently, father of the plaintiffs is a party to the suit and suffered and an adverse Order. 17. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that parties are bound by the judgment of a Court which attained finality and the same cannot be re- agitated by the legal representatives of a party to the said judgment. 18. In the case on hand, when father of the plaintiffs have suffered an adverse order in O.S.No.492/1996 which attained its' finality in RSA No.3489/2006 the question of validity of the gift deed ought not to have been re-agitated in the present suit in O.S.No.1091/2009. 19. Learned Judge in the Trial Court, ignoring the said aspect of the matter decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of all items of the suit properties granting 1/42 share to each of the plaintiffs. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 20. Pertinently, defendants No.11 to 13 are the beneficiaries under the gift deed, approached the First Appellate Court by filing an appeal in R.A.No.88/2021 with regard to items No.1, 2 and 2(A) of the suit properties alone. 21. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court taking note of a specific plea being taken by the defendant No.12 by filing the additional written statement and also taking note of the judgment passed in O.S.No.492/1996 which attained its' finality in R.S.A.No.3489/2006 rightly allowed the appeal excluding the share of the plaintiffs in respect of items No.1, 2 and 2(A) of the suit properties which is the subject matter of the gift deed executed by Sri. Rangaswamaiah in favour of Smt. Lakshmamma. 22. In view of the above factual aspects of the matter, this Court does not find merit in any one of the grounds or the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37741 RSA No. 1261 of 2023 23. Hence, following order : ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44