- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1138 OF 2018 (DEC) BETWEEN: JAYAMMA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, TUMKURU KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK BY P.A.HOLDER NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O KUMBAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O MARULENAHALLI, TUMKURU KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK, SINCE DEAD BY LRs. 1(a) NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. LATE KUMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 1(b) RAVIKUMAR, S/O. LATE KUMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O MARALENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, SIRAGATE POST, WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU-572106. 1(c) MAHALAXMI W/O HANUMANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHANAGARA COLONY, NEAR JAKKASANDRA, NELAMANGALA-562112 Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 BENGALURU. 1(d) MANJAMMA W/O LATE KIRAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. “KEMPAIAH NILAYA”, BEERAGANGAHALLI VILLAGE, YEDIYUR, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572142. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2022) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI T. GOVINDA RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR LRs. OF DECEASED APPELLANT) AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O T.V. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NEAR BHAGYANAGARA, BAJANE MANE, BELAGUMBA ROAD, WARD NO.21, TUMKUR. NOW R/O MARALENAHALLI, TUMKURU KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK - 572 106. 2. M. SHIVARAM S/O LATE B. MARANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, MARALENAHALLI, TUMKURU KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK - 572 106. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.03.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.252/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT The present Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff (now represented by his LRs.) assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of Survey No. 26, measuring 02 acres 05 guntas out of 07 acres 11 guntas in Sy.No.26/2 situated at Marulenahalli Village, Tumkur Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, which came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2017 passed in OS No.31/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumkur (hereinafter referred as ‘the trial Court’ for short) confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2018 passed in RA No.252/2017 on the file of Principal District Judge (hereinafter referred as ‘First Appellate Court’ for short). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the material on record. Brief facts: 3. Suit is for declaration that the compromise decree in OS No.269/2006 dated 12.03.2007 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. 4. The plaintiff claims that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property measuring 02 acres 05 guntas in Survey No.26/2 situated at Marulenahallli Village, Tumkuru Taluk, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1984 from Sanjeevamma and her husband. It is the case of the plaintiff that the larger extent of 07 acres 11 guntas originally belonged to Susheelappa and Sanjeevamma. Out of the said extent of 05 acres 06 guntas was sold to Maranna- the father of defendant No.2 in the year 1964. According to the plaintiff, though Maranna had purchased only 05 acres 06 guntas, he managed to get the revenue - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 records mutated to an extent of 05 acres 11 guntas, thereby encroaching upon the plaintiff's land. It is further stated that the plaintiff had approached the revenue authorities and also the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) where the plaintiff was advised to approach the Civil Court. Accordingly, the plaintiff had filed OS No.630/1996 and OS No.581/1998 and in OS No.581/1998, by the judgment and decree, the suit was decreed directing the father of defendant No.2 to hand over the possession of the land. Subsequently, OS No. 269/2006 was filed by the defendants seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale and the said suit ended in a compromise decree dated 12.03.2007. According to the plaintiff, the said compromise decree adversely affects her rights over the suit property and is therefore, not binding on her, which constrained her to institute the present suit for declaration and possession. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants have appeared and filed the written statement denying the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 plaint averments. It is contended that defendant No.1 had purchased 01 acre of land in Survey No. 26/2 and the said property does not form part of the plaintiff's property. It is further contended that OS No.269/2006 filed for specific performance ended in compromise and in execution proceedings the land was measured and possession was delivered and the plaintiff has not raised any objection at that stage. 6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. The plaintiff examined the power of attorney holder as PW1 and marked documents at Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P35, while defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1 and another witness as DW2 and produced documents at Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D20. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the compromise in OS No.269/2006 is null and void or not binding on her. The trial Court further observed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 that the earlier decree in OS No.581/1998 had already determined the rights of the parties and the said decree was under challenge before this Court in RSA No.674/2015 and therefore, the question of re-adjudicating the issue of possession in the present suit could not arise. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit holding that it is barred by Doctrine of res judicata. 8. The First Appellate Court being the last fact finding Court on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that the dispute relating to the same property had already been adjudicated in earlier proceedings and the present suit seeking declaration and possession is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is contended that though the trial Court had recasted Issue No. 2, the trial Court failed to consider the compromise decree passed in OS No.269/2006 is not binding on the plaintiff and ought to have declared the same as null and void. It is contended that the decree passed in OS No.581/1998, which had been relied upon by the Courts below, is itself the subject matter of challenge in RSA No. 674/2015 before this Court and therefore, the trial Court ought to have held that the compromise decree in OS No. 269/2006 cannot bind the plaintiff. According to the appellant, both the Courts below have failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and have erroneously dismissed the suit. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is contended that the dispute relating to the suit property had already been adjudicated in OS No. 581/ 1998 wherein a decree has been passed directing delivery - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 of the possession. It is contended that the said decree had been challenged in RA No.251/2007 and subsequently in RSA No. 674/2015 which is pending before this Court and therefore, the plaintiff cannot maintain another suit seeking for declaration of possession in respect of the suit property. It is submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity warranting any interference. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. The plaintiff claims title of the suit property measuring 02 acres 05 guntas in Survey No. 26/2 of Marulenahalli Village under a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1984 executed by Sanjeevamma and her husband. Sanjeevamma had earlier purchased the property from Susheelappa and Sanjeevamma under a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1964 thereby forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim of title. It is also not in dispute that an - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 earlier suit in OS No.581/1998 had been instituted by the plaintiff against Maranna, the father of defendant No. 2, in respect of the very same property, the said suit has been decreed directing delivery of possession of 11 guntas of land. The said decree was subsequently challenged in RA No.251/2007 and thereafter in RSA No. 674/2015, which is pending consideration before this Court. The plaintiff in the present proceedings had sought declaration that the compromise decree dated 12.03.2007 passed in OS No. 269/2006 is null and void and not binding on her. Admittedly, the plaintiff was not a party to the said compromise decree and therefore, the said decree by itself would cannot operate to bind the parties of a person who are not party to the proceedings. However, it is also evident from the record that defendant No. 1 claims title to the property through defendant No. 2 and the defendant No. 2 in turn claims through his father Maranna, who had suffered a decree in OS No. 581/1998. Therefore, the rights of the party in respect of the suit property has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13877 RSA No. 1138 of 2018 already been the subject matter of the adjudication in the earlier proceedings. In that background, the Courts below have concurrently held that the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and possession essentially amounts to re-agitating the dispute relating to the same property which had already been adjudicated and which is also pending consideration before this Court in RSA No. 674/2015. Manner in which the Courts below have assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting any interference. However, in light of the judgment and decree in OS No.581/1998 which is pending in RSA No.674/2015, there arises no substantial question of law for consideration in this present appeal. Accordingly, the regular second appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA TSN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26