- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1292 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2009 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: B.O. THIMMESH, S/O ONKARAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT MAVINAKATTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 560. &COMMON APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O RUDRASWAMY MAJOR, R/AT MAVINAKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 560. 2. SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O UJJINAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT BEESANAHALLY VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577560 &COMMON RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 - SD/-) RSA NO.1292 OF 2009 IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 23.06.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:27.09.03 PASSED IN OS.NO.156/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JR. DN.), HOSADURGA. RSA NO.1293 OF 2009 IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED: 23.06.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.), HOLALKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:21.07.2006 PASSED IN OS.NO.134/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JR. DN.), HOSADURGA. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Hosadurga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') has preferred RSA No.1292/2009 impugning the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2009 passed in RA No.51/2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which partly decreed his suit, and granted permanent injunction until he is dispossessed in accordance with law, while rejecting his prayer for declaration that the decree dated 06.01.2003 obtained by defendant No.1 in OS.No.186/2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga, is not binding on the plaintiff. 2. Defendant No.2 in OS.No.134/2004 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') has preferred RSA No.1293/2009 impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2006 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff therein, declaring that she is the owner of the schedule property and directing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 appellant/defendant No.2 to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property after demolishing the house situated therein, within six months from the date of decree and the judgment dated 23.06.2009 passed in RA No.45/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court in OS.No.156/2003. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 being the appellant in RSA No.1292/2009 filed the suit seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2003 passed in OS.No.186/2002 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga, was obtained in collusion by the defendants. Hence, the same is not binding on him and for grant of permanent injunction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 restraining defendant No.1 from executing the said decree in OS.No.186/2002 against the plaintiff. 5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he being the owner of the schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the same, as he purchased it from defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002. The schedule attached to the plaint describes the land bearing Sy.No.46/p2 measuring 2 guntas out of 13 guntas with the boundaries mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as the schedule property). Since from the date of purchase, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, khata was mutated in his name and the revenue documents stand in his favour. 6. It is contended that defendant No.1 is the stranger to the suit schedule property. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with one another created document styled as agreement for sale dated 06.09.2001 and based on such concocted document, defendant No.1 filed the suit OS.No.186/2002 before the Trial Court against defendant No.2 seeking specific performance of contract. The said suit was not contested by defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 managed to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 get a decree in her favour on 06.01.2003. Since by that time, the plaintiff had already purchased schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002. Defendant No.1 was not entitled for any relief. 7. Since the plaintiff was not made as party in OS.No.186/2002, seeking any relief to avoid the registered sale deed, the plaintiff is not bound by the decree passed in OS.No.186/2002. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff and therefore, sought for permanent injunction along with declaration that the decree in OS.No.186/2002 is not binding on him. 8. The plaintiff also contended that defendant No.1 had filed the suit OS.No.85/2003 before the Trial Court against the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction. But the Trial Court has not granted her temporary injunction and finally, suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit as prayed for. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 9. Defendant No.1 appeared before the Trial Court and filed her written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant No.2 being the owner of the schedule property had executed an agreement for sale dated 06.09.2001 for a valid consideration of Rs.5,000/- and had accepted the advance amount of Rs.3,500/-. Defendant No.1 had agreed to repay the balance consideration amount at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, defendant No.2 was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by executing the sale deed and therefore, legal notice was issued calling upon defendant No.2 to execute the sale deed. Inspite of service of notice, defendant No.2 had not executed the sale deed and therefore, defendant No.1 had filed the suit OS.No.186/2002 for specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed on 06.01.2003 and on the basis of said decree, execution No.29/2003 was filed and registered sale deed got executed in favour of defendant No.1 through process of the Court. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are colluding with one another and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 10. Defendant No.2 remained exparte and has not contested the matter. 11. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were came to be framed in OS.No.156/2003. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 executed by 2nd defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in possession of the suit property as on the date of suit? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree in OS.No.186/2002 is not binding on the plaintiff and is liable to be cancelled? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? 6. What order or decree? 12. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to 5 in support of his contention. Defendant No.1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 examined herself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to 7 in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered Issue Nos.1 and 3 in the Negative, Issue Nos.2 and 4 in the Affirmative, Issue No.5 partly in the affirmative and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part. The prayer for declaration that the judgment in OS.No.186/2002 is not binding on the plaintiff was rejected. However, permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff till defendant No.1 gets possession of the property in accordance with law. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred RA No.51/2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Holalkere. The First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the materials on record dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RSA No.1292/2009. 14. Defendant No.1 in OS.No.156/2003 has filed the suit OS.No.134/2004 against the appellant - B.O.Thimmesh as defendant No.2, and the original owner as defendant No.1, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 seeking declaration that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule property in her favour. 15. It is contended by the plaintiff therein, who is defendant No.1 in the connected suit, that defendant No.1 being the owner of the schedule property had executed the agreement to sale. Later, she obtained decree in OS.No.186/2002 for specific performance of the contract. In Ex.No.29/2003, she got registered the sale deed executed in her favour in respect of the schedule property. 16. It is contended that defendants therein are colluding with one another and managed to concoct the sale deed dated 12.08.2002. It is contended that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property since from the date of agreement to sale. The plaintiff contended that she had filed OS.No.85/2003 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking permanent injunction. Since her application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed due to technical reasons, she withdrew the suit. In the meantime, defendant No.2 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 constructed a building in the schedule property without obtaining license. 17. It is contended that defendant No.2 had filed the suit OS.No.156/2003 for declaration and for permanent injunction, the said suit is already dismissed. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus, she is entitled for declaration of her title over the schedule property and for possession of the same. 18. The schedule attached to the plaint describes the land bearing Sy.No.46/P2 old No.46/2 measuring 2 guntas with boundaries mentioned therein. 19. Defendant No.2, who is the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 filed the written statement taking similar contention as stated in the plaint in OS.No.156/2003 and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 20. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff and contended that he was the lawful owner in possession of the schedule property. It - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 is also contended that before the plaintiff filing the suit OS.No.186/2002 against defendant No.2 seeking specific performance of contract, defendant No.1 had executed the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the schedule property and he was put in vacant possession of the property. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 21. On the basis of these pleadings, following issues came to be framed in OS.No.134/2004. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property from the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? 4. What order or decree? 22. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 4, defendants examined DWs.1 and 2. On the basis of these materials, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Affirmative and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 declaring that she is the owner of the schedule property. Defendant No.2 was directed to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff after demolishing the house situated therein within six months from the date of decree. 23. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, defendant No.2 has preferred RA No.45/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Holalkere. The First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the materials on record dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 is before this Court in RSA No.1293/2009. 24. Heard Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel representing the appellant in both the appeals. Sri. G.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent and has not addressed his argument inspite of giving sufficient opportunity and therefore his argument is taken as nil. 25. Perused the materials on record in the light of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as by the First - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree in both the suits. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the materials that are placed before the Court it is clear that defendant No.1 had executed the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.P1. The suit OS.No.186/2002 came to be filed on 07.10.2002, seeking specific performance of contract. By that time, sale deed was already executed in favour of the plaintiff. In the said suit, plaintiff is not made as party. Defendant No.1 remained exparte and the suit came to be decreed on 06.01.2003 as per Ex.P3. 27. Learned counsel also submitted that OS.No.85/2003 was filed against plaintiff and defendant No.1, seeking permanent injunction but no injunction was granted in her favour and the suit came to be withdrawn as not pressed. 28. Learned counsel contended that defendant No.1 filed the suit OS.No.134/2004 seeking declaration regarding registered sale deed Ex.P1 dated 12.08.2002, which was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 executed much prior to filing of the suit OS.No.186/2002. Therefore, defendant No.1 was not entitled for any relief. Naturally, plaintiff is not bound by decree in OS.No.186/2002. Ignoring all these facts, the Trial Court and the First appellate Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. Accordingly, prays for allowing both the appeals. 29. This Court vide order dated 26.03.2013 formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration. a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in holding that the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 is binding on the plaintiff in view of the fact that the sale deed dated 12.08.2002 was executed in favour of the appellant by the 2nd respondent before filing OS.No.186/2002? b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002? - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 30. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 had purchased the schedule property from defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 marked as Ex.P1 in OS.No.156/2003, which is also marked as Ex.P3 in OS.No.134/2004. The suit is for declaration that the decree obtained by defendant No.1 in OS.No.186/2002 on the file of the Trial Court is not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction from executing the decree. The said suit was decreed in-part by holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property measuring 2 guntas of land and granted permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, till he is dispossessed in accordance with law. However, rejecting the claim for declaration that the decree in OS.No.186/2002 is not binding on the plaintiff. 31. In the meantime, defendant No.1 in OS.No.156/2003 filed the suit OS.134/2004 against the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 arraigned him as defendant No.2 and the owner of the property as defendant No.1 seeking declaration of her title and for delivery of possession of the schedule property, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 which is 2 guntas of land described in the schedule. The said suit came to be decreed declaring that the plaintiff therein is the owner of the property in question and directing defendant No.2 to deliver possession of the property in favour of the plaintiff after demolishing the building constructed thereon. 32. These judgments came to be passed separately and separate Regular Appeals in RA No.51/2003 and RA No.45/2006 came to be filed. Both these regular appeals came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003, who is defendant No.2 in OS.No.134/2004 has preferred these appeals RSA No.1292/2009 and RSA No.1293/2009 impugning the said judgments and decree. 33. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff has purchased the schedule property from defendant No.2 in OS.No.156/2003, who is defendant No.1 in OS.No.134/2004 under the sale deed dated 12.08.2002, which is produced in both the suits. The materials on record especially Ex.P3 marked in OS.No.156/2003 discloses that the said suit OS.No.186/2002 came to be filed on 07.10.2002. Therefore, it is clear that by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 the time, the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 filed the suit OS.No.186/2002 before the Trial Court, the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 had already purchased the schedule property from its previous owner under the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002. 34. Admittedly, the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 was not arrayed as party in OS.No.186/2002. The owner, who was the defendant in OS.No.186/2002 had never contested the suit and an ex- parte decree came to be passed for specific performance of the contract in the said suit. Pursuant to the same, the decree holder filed the execution case and got the sale deed executed through process of law as the owner had not even contested the execution case. It is pertinent to note that the owner had never taken a contention that he had already executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 by the time the suit OS.186/2002 was filed. Since the purchaser was not a party in the said suit, the decree came to be passed uncontested and even the decree was executed without any objection. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 35. In view of these admitted facts, now the question arises as to whether the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 produced in both the suits, which came into existence much earlier to filing of the suit OS.No.186/2002 seeking specific performance of the contract, could be ignored simply because an exparte decree in OS.No.186/2002 was passed and the decree was executed to get the sale deed registered without any objection from the owner. The answer would be in the negative. Since the registered sale deed was already in existence, admittedly, the purchaser being the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 was put in possession of the schedule property, who even constructed a building thereon. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the decree obtained behind his back in OS.No.186/2002, which was instituted much after the sale deed in his favour, is binding on the plaintiff. 36. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff in OS.No.186/2002, after getting the sale deed in her favour, instituted the suit OS.No.134/2004 against the original owner as defendant No.1 and the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 as defendant No.2, seeking declaration of her title and for delivery - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 of possession of the suit schedule property. The declaration of title is solely on the basis of the decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 and the sale deed executed through process of law in the execution case to execute the decree in the said suit. Strangely, the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 had never sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 12.08.2002 which came into existence much prior to she filing the suit OS.No.186/2002 is not binding on her. Even though, there is reference to the said sale deed in the plaint in OS.No.134/2004, it is contented that it was a collusive sale deed got executed in favour of the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003, and no relief was sought to avoid the same. 37. It is relevant to refer to the following decisions which will through much light on the position of law on the subject. Sri. U.Vijaya Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Malini V.Rao1 and Sri. Suhrid Singh Alias Sardool Singh V.Randhir Singh and others2. This Court in Revansiddappa Vs. Saraswati w/o Devendra Hulgera3 by referring to the above decisions, reiterated the position of law to hold that the 1 ILR 2016 KAR 2670 2 (2010) 12 SCC 112 3 RSA No.7339/2011 DD 08.11.2023 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 parties to the document or decree can avoid the same by seeking its cancellation. But if they are not parties to the document or decree, it is sufficient for them to seek declaration that the same is not binding on them. Thus, the position of law is very well settled. Unless the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 avoids the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 by seeking a declaration that the same is not binding on her, she could not have sought for a declaration of her title solely on the basis of exparte decree and the sale deed by executing the said exparte decree through process of law. 38. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff in OS.No.186/2002 had filed OS.No.85/2003 for permanent injunction. Admittedly, the plaintiff in the said suit was not successful in getting the temporary injunction and later, even the suit came to be withdrawn on 28.05.2003. The said order is produced as per Ex.P5 in OS.No.156/2003. This shows the conduct of the plaintiff in OS.No.186/2002 and OS.No.134/2004, who made an attempt to get a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003, who was admittedly in possession of the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 schedule property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002, without seeking any relief about the same. 39. It is thereafter, the suit OS.No.134/2004 came to be filed seeking declaration of title and for delivery of possession of the schedule property. There is absolutely no explanation by the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 as to why she has filed the suit OS.No.85/2003 seeking permanent injunction when admittedly she was not in possession of the schedule property. 40. At least when the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 came to know about the sale deed dated 12.08.2002 executed in favour of the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 much prior to filing of the suit OS.No.186/2002, she should have sought for a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on her. In the absence of any such relief, the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 is not entitled for any relief. Moreover, the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 is entitled for declaration that the exparte decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 is behind his back, much after the sale deed executed in his favour and the same is not binding on him. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 41. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed in OS.No.156/2003. The Trial Court placed its judgment solely on the decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 and execution of the sale deed executed through process of law in the execution that was filed by the decree holder, to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, without taking into consideration the fact that the sale deed dated 12.08.2002 relied on by the plaintiff was much earlier to filing of the suit OS.No.186/2002. It has also not considered the effect of the registered sale deed while granting the relief of specific performance of the contract in OS.No.186/2002. It has also ignored the fact that the plaintiff in OS.No.156/2003 was not a party to OS.No.186/2002 and the original owner, who was the defendant in the said suit never contested the suit. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in OS.No.134/2004 blindly accepted the judgment passed in OS.No.156/2003, without application of mind about the facts narrated above. 42. Strangely, even the First Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the suit without taking into consideration any of these factual and legal aspects of the matter. Therefore, I am - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 of the opinion that The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in holding that the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 is binding on the plaintiff in OS No.156/2003, ignoring the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 executed in favour of the appellant by respondent No.2. Similarly, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were not justified in holding that the appellant is not the owner of the suit schedule property, even though the registered sale deed dated 12.08.2002 was executed in his favour. Accordingly, I answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. As a result, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) Appeals are allowed with costs. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2003 passed in OS.No.156/2003 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga is set aside. (iii) The suit OS.No.156/2003 is decreed with costs. It is declared that the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.186/2002 on the file of the - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1919 RSA No. 1292 of 2009 C/W RSA No. 1293 of 2009 learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga, is not binding on the plaintiff. (iv) The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff. (v) The judgment and decree dated 21.07.2006 passed in OS.No.134/2004 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hosadurga, is set aside. As a result, the said suit stands dismissed with costs. (vi) Office is directed to draw decree accordingly. Send back the records along with copy of the judgment and the decree. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1