- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.4155 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR. J. DEVARAJ S/O LATE J.M. JAIRAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT JAKKUR, NEAR JAKKUR CIRCLE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATH, ADV., FOR SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADV.,) AND: 1. 1A. 1B. SRI. P. ANJANE GOWDA S/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS SINCE DEAD REP. BY LR’S. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE P. ANJANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.3, GANGA 1ST FLOOR 3RD CROSS, GKVK LAYOUT JAKKUR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560064. SRI. NITHIN A S/O LATE P. ANJANE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.3, GANGA 1ST FLOOR 3RD CROSS, GKVK LAYOUT Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 JAKKUR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560064. 2. SMT. P. JALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT THANISANDRA BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 3. SMT. P. YASHODA D/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. R1 & R3 ARE R/OF JAKKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560064. 4. SRI. P. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.565, 5TH MAIN 4TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR T. DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560057. 5. SRI. P. ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 6. SRI. P. IRAPPAGOWDA @ PAPANNA S/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. R5 & R6 ARE R/AT NO.362 JAKKUR, JAKKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE- 560064. 7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SRI. J.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED 81 YEARS. 8. SRI. J.K. JAGADISH Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 S/O LATE SRI. J.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. R7 & R8 R/AT. GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD JAKKUR, YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE-560064. 9. SMT. PRAMILA D/O LATE J.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT AMRUTHA VARSHINI 6TH MAIN, 3RD PHASE YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. 10. SMT. INDIRA D/O LATE SRI. J.M. KRISHNAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT NO.68, 3RD MAIN ROAD 3RD A CROSS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BANGALORE-560064. 11. SMT. MUNIYAMMA S/O LATE SRI. A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS JAKKUR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560064 [DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 20-02-2014] …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SRI. PRADEEP C.S. ADV., FOR R4 & R6 R5, R7, R8, R9, R1(A), R1(B) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:04.08.2026, NOTICE IN R/O R10 IS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CITY Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-XXXVIII AT BENGALURU IN OS NO.183/2011 ON IA NO.22 PRODUCED AS ANNX-A TO THIS W.P. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW I.A.NO.22 DATED 11.02.2020 FILED U/S 10 OF CPC, BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN OS NO.183/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH- XXXVIII AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-L TO THIS W.P. & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by the defendant assailing the order passed by the learned Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’). By the said application, the petitioner sought stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.183/2011 on the premise that a Regular First Appeal in RFA No.1944/2010 is pending consideration before this Court, arising out of the dismissal of O.S.No.2594/2001, which also pertains to the subject property. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and the material placed on record. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 2. The contention of the petitioner is that since the earlier suit in O.S.No.2594/2001 and the present suit in O.S.No.183/2011 relate to the same property, and the judgment in the earlier suit is presently the subject matter of challenge in RFA No.1944/2010, the proceedings in the present suit are required to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. 3. Section 10 of CPC embodies the principle of res sub judice. The provision is attracted only when the matter in issue in a subsequently instituted suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title. The provision is intended to prevent simultaneous adjudication of the same matter by two competent Courts and, consequently, the requirements of Section 10 have to be strictly satisfied before the jurisdiction thereunder can be invoked. 4. In the present case, the earlier suit in O.S.No.2594/2001 was instituted by Sri. J.M. Krishnappa against the present petitioner seeking the relief of injunction. Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 The said suit came to be dismissed and the appeal preferred by Sri. J.M. Krishnappa is stated to be pending consideration in RFA No.1944/2010. The present suit, however, stands on an entirely different footing. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.183/2011 have instituted a comprehensive suit seeking declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. Their claim is founded upon title documents under which they trace their title through the legal heirs of one Sri. Pillappa. 5. Significantly, the present plaintiffs do not trace their title through Sri. J.M. Krishnappa, who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit. Thus, there is neither identity of parties nor any material placed before this Court to demonstrate that the present plaintiffs and the plaintiff in O.S.No.2594/2001 are litigating under the same title. The mere identity of the property, therefore, cannot bring the subsequent suit within the ambit of Section 10 of CPC. 6. More importantly, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the two suits is also not shown to be identical. The earlier suit was essentially an action for injunction instituted by Sri. J.M. Krishnappa, whereas the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 present suit involves an adjudication of competing claims of title and seeks a declaration of ownership. The question of title in the present suit is required to be adjudicated on the basis of the respective title documents and the competing claims set up by the parties. Such an issue cannot be said to be directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit merely because the property involved is the same. 7. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between the subject matter of the suit and the matter in issue in the suit. Section 10 of CPC does not contemplate stay merely because the subject property in two proceedings is common. What is required is that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must also be directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and that the other statutory requirements of the provision are satisfied. In the absence of such identity, the pendency of the earlier proceedings, including an appeal arising therefrom, cannot operate as a bar to continuation of the subsequent suit. 8. In the facts of the present case, the earlier suit was between Sri. J.M. Krishnappa and the present petitioner, Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010092232020 NC: 2026:KHC:49297 W.P. No.4155 of 2020 whereas the present suit is instituted by different plaintiffs claiming title through the legal heirs of Sri. Pillappa. There are competing claims of title between the parties to the present suit. Consequently, the pendency of RFA No.1944/2010 cannot furnish a ground for staying the proceedings in O.S.No.183/2011 under Section 10 of CPC. 9. The learned Judge has examined the rival contentions in the proper perspective and has rightly concluded that the essential ingredients for invoking Section 10 of CPC are not satisfied. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with O.S.No.183/2011 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein on the merits of the rival claims of title. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified