Karnataka High Court
Narana Poojary vs Smt Gulabi on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1384 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
NARANA POOJARY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SMT. LEELA
W/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
2. YADAVA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally signed by R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
PANKAJA S
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
KARNATAKA
3. KESHAVA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 018.
4. HARISHA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
5. SMT. LATHA
D/O ALTE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
6. SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
7. M. SWATHY
GRANDAUGHTER OF NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
8. R. NAVEENA
GRANDSON OF NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
...APPELLANTS
AND:
1. SMT. GULABI
W/O ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHANAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
2. MADHAVA BANGERA
S/O ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
3. DAYANANDA
S/O LATE ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
4. RAJESH
S/O LATE ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
5. RAMA POOJARY
S/O LATE THANKARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
5(a) SMT. MEENAKSHI,
W/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(b) SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGE : MAJOR
5(c) SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE:MAJOR
5(d) SMT. BHARATHI
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(e) SRI. VISHWANATH
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE:MAJOR
5(f) SRI. BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(g) SRI. GANESH
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT: NO.2/39/B, MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, BELMA(CT), MANGALURU
MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 018.
AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2024
DOOMAPPA POOJARY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
6. SMT. KUSUMA
D/O LATE DOOMAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
7. SMT. SUJATHA
D/O LATE DOOMA POOJARY
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
8. SHEKARA
S/O LATE DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
9. PAVITHRA
D/O DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
10. SUMA
D/O DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
11. SMT. LEELA
D/O THANKARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT YEDODI, VORKADY ROAD,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT-671 121.
AMENDED CAUSE TITILE FILED ON 20.06.2024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(LR'S OF DECEASED APPEELLANT NO.1)
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.11.2025
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R4, R5(A-G) & R11,
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH K ADVOCATE FOR R6-R10,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
R1, R2, R3 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 42 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.06.2019 PASSED
IN R.A.NO. 10/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU D.K., DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD
25.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 753/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU D.K.,
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 25.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for cancellation of preliminary decree in O.S.No.677/2001 and for consequential decree of partition of the suit schedule property by virtue of chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father original plaintiff namely Narna Poojary along with their grandfather Thankara Poojary were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property based on the chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 obtained from their landlord by name -7- NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR Narasimha Bhandary and as such, they both have equal share in the suit schedule property. Ever since the date of chalageni, they were in actual possession of the suit schedule property. Things stood thus, defendant Nos.1 to 4 (the legal heirs of Ishwara Poojary, one of the brothers of Narna Poojary) filed O.S.No.677/2001 for partition of suit schedule property against Narna Poojary, wherein, Narna Poojary, being rustic villager, did not file any written statement and taking advantage of the same, defendant No.6 - Doomappa Poojary (one of the brothers of Narna Poojary) misrepresented the facts in OS.No.677/2001. Based on the same, the defendants summoned four chalageni chits subsequent to 30.09.1957 and purposefully, they omitted to summon the chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 which was executed in favour of Narna Poojary and his father, although Doomappa Poojary had knowledge of the same. As such, though the plaintiff was entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and his father's share i.e., Thankara Poojary's share ought -8- NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR to have been divided into five equal shares among his five children, the suit OS.No.677/2001 was decreed granting 1/5th share to the legal heirs of Thankara Poojary. Against which, Narna Poojary preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, FDP proceedings were initiated, which was closed. Being aggrieved by the same, Narna Poojary preferred an appeal. Since defendants colluding with Doomappa Poojary had obtained preliminary decree in OS.No.677/2001, left with no other alternative, plaintiff
- Narna Poojary preferred the present suit in OS.No.753/2011.
4. The Trial Court, after framing the relevant issues, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff - Narna Poojary has failed to prove that he along with his father Thankara Poojary were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove that his brothers i.e., Rama Poojary and Doomappa Poojary had played fraud on him in OS.No.677/2001. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the ground of principles of res judicata.
6. I have heard Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 4, 5 (a to g) and respondent No.11, Sri Jayaprakash K., learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 though served, remained unrepresented.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have grossly erred by holding that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by res judicata, when the subject matter and the relief sought in O.S No.677/2001 is quite different from the instant case. He further contended that the Trial Court has also erred in holding that the partition cannot be reopened once the partition is effected by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR Court in final decree proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court has erred in not relying on Ex.P20
- Chalageni Chit dated 30.09.1957 which clearly depicts that the original plaintiff - Narna Poojary and his father jointly obtained the suit schedule property on Chalageni, as such, he is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and only the half share of his father - Thankara Poojary had to be divided in 5 equal shares.
8. According to learned counsel, the plaintiff, who was an illiterate person, had no worldly knowledge and reposed confidence on his brother - Doomappa Poojary (defendant No.3 in O.S.No.677/2001) and entrusted the work of conducting the case. However, his brother had not produced Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 in O.S No.677/2001. In such circumstance, the same amounts to fraud on the Court and the plaintiff.
9. He also contended that, in the cross-examination of DW.1, Madhava Bangera - son of Ishwara Poojary, he
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR admitted that, either himself or any other parties have not brought Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 to the notice of the Court in O.S. No.677/2001. Further, it is also admitted that, as per Ex.P20, half of the suit schedule property devolves to the share of plaintiff - Narna Poojary. This admission of DW.1 goes to the root of the plaintiffs' case and the Trial Court has totally misread the same and dismissed the suit on the ground of res-judicata. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, Ex.P20 clearly reveals that the same was executed on 30.09.1957 only for a period of one year. Thereafter, the chalageni chit was executed only in favour of Thankara Poojary i.e. the father of plaintiffs and defendants. As such, it is clear that the plaintiff was not continued as a joint tenant of the suit schedule property after one year from 30.09.1957. Further, Ex.P20 was executed in the name of plaintiff and his father on the capacity of Kartha/Manager of joint family. As such,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR though the Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 was executed in their favour in respect of suit schedule property, the same would be liable to be partitioned. Accordingly, the plaintiff, who was a party in O.S No.677/2001, had admitted the statement of his brother Doomappa Poojary and also consented for final decree proceedings by accepting his share. In such circumstance, the suit is hit by res-judicata and accordingly, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
12. As could be gathered from records, the suit schedule property is the subject matter of O.S.No.677/2001, which was preferred by the legal heirs of Ishwara Poojary for partition against the plaintiff and the other children of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR Thankara Poojary. In the said suit, the original plaintiff has not filed his written statement. Doomappa Poojary contested the said suit. The said suit decreed and the final decree was drawn in FDP.No.6/2007 and the respective shares of plaintiff and defendants were allotted. Thereafter, the original plaintiff instituted the instant suit on the ground that, the plaintiff and his father - Thankara Poojary had jointly obtained the suit schedule property for chalageni from the landlord in the year 1957. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property and the remaining half share ought to have been partitioned. However, due to illiteracy of the plaintiff, he had not placed Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 in O.S No.677/2001.
13. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 was issued in the name of the plaintiff and his father - Thankara Poojary in respect of suit schedule property only for one year i.e. from 30.09.1957 on the capacity of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379 RSA No. 1384 of 2019 HC-KAR Kartha/Manager of the joint family. As such, the suit schedule property would be liable to be partitioned. Moreover, after one year, the chalageni was continued only in the name of Thankara Poojary. The plaintiff, being a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.677/2001, has failed to file written statement and contest the said suit and also having accepted the decree in the said suit and having accepted his share in FDP No.6/2007, now cannot take a u-turn and claim right by relying on the 50 years old document. The said aspect of the matter has rightly been dealt by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and have rightly applied the principles of res-judicata in the instant suit and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Hence, I find no question of law much less the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43