Karnataka High Court
T B Srinivasa Rao vs B V Hanumantha Rao on 13 June, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BAN§:;AL{};é+,§Ef;_"1'
:9
DATED THIS THE 13*!» DAY 0? JUNE V :57.ij ._ 3 4 "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. .J;3$IcE;»a_é=aoPA§:';«z;§V'' '
RSA No. 503/2002 c/w RSA N02; 594/ 20923.. f5o:§;{2(Vio2
BETWEEN ;
I
1 (al
'1' B SRINWASA RAO BASAF';PA' ". '-
DEAD BY LES I _ '
PADMAwéi'};1*§!s§A; '' ;_
wzxo LA'1'E;*1f B szmsxvasa 529.0
Riiji-£10.. 1441', éifii .CRQSS4 ROAD
SUMANA, ASHO KANAGAR
MANDYA " . "
_" 'i3UMITHA BAI'W.,.-f «M GYANOBA
'" MA;IOR," TAILOR
. V' * .TPJe5GU¥?PA._
" 'TALUK
,1"£3AYAf:'i}:':2z'sA1
'aw; C) v -SURYANARAYANA RAO
MAJQR
R/O»"I'RAC'I'ION PGWER CONTROL
' 'BHUSAVAD
= MAHARASHTRA STATE
SHAKUNTALA 31511 W)' O ASWATH
MAJOR
R/O GANESHA COLQNY
BHADRAVATHI
J»,
'1:
(By 811': QCJPAL .. ' -
KRISHNA BA} W/0 M-UTHANDA R
MAJOR V
R/O No.8/563,1»! H B COLONY
BORIVILLI WEST
BOMBAY
A0
DR. SATYAHRAYANA RAG
S/O LATE T B SRINIVASA RAO'>._ .
MAJOR --.
R/O NQ1441, 4TH 'c:R*cxsS.'RQAD ~
SUMANA, ASHOKANAOAR '-- . '
BOMBAY '- V 5 '
TBBASAVARAJ
310 LATE:-.T B?--SRiI~I.,IVASA RAG },
MAJOR'
12/0 N0.,;95., Rom: ._
JA,r~$r-ea if-m2_A, E2:e§ADi%A'éA'rHi*-----vV....
APPELLANTS
gcmmorn
' ~13 vinafizgmamfié mo
" ~ .,S/r3vB%v.,VE:§_KATEsHA1AH BEAD BY LES
':3 V"§«_iANI%:AéAMMA
w/o_ imzwmmm RAG
'"'MAa.»__§OI~E», "HOUSEHOLD WORK
RIO '$30.69, SRINAGAR
_ BAi?{}uALORE
" gm H VENKATASWAMY
S/0 LATE HANUMANPHA RAG
MAJOR
R/O BI-{ADRAVATHI
T R RUKMINI
W/O T NARAYANA RAO
MAJOR
R/O N069, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE
B N THULASI DEVI _
W/O LATE D N NEELAKANTA'-RAG
MAJOR "
R/G No.69, SRENAGAR
BANGALORE
B H YASHODA '~ 1
W70 A R SHIVASHANKA f '
MAJOR -
R/O N0.69.,4s121'mA<:mR 1. _
BANGALQRE ., .
B H ANfiSU='!Ai
D/ O. %HANU%MAI%:rH;A ~
MAJGR _ .
R/<3N<3;69,'SR:-NA::';A'R_ ' '
BANGALOREV ~
B H NA<}ARzLJ S';_'O'~s§Ar«:i3MANrHA RAG
MAJOR " '
1 0' No.59, S}"<'IN_A_C;AR
'*BAI\¥C-'.~ALORE
' E;J.3gtj:::i:$.it2Af:'};1RAM
'V ."SIANCE'£v§E£.i3 REPDBY HER LR
"RES-POEIDENT NO. Ha}
B ia-;:AMAKR;sHNA
». " "SA/O HANUMARFHA RAG
= MAJOR
R'/0 N069, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE
B H PeiANGA1.A
D/O HANUMANTHA RAG
MAJOR
R] O N059, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE
10 TTHIMMAIAH
S/0 GANIGARA THIMMAIAH '
MAJOR
F:/O No.51, mew TOWN BOARD
AREA, JANNAPURA * V
BHADRAVATHI " -gnammsnrs
in R$$AHo. 503:0:
(By Sri: V B SHIVAKUMAR , 1§;:2v. féog'V'1§i«--.;;'e%{;6., 7 83- 9§ N
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UlS.:10i3..V_'AGAINS'F THE
JUDGMENT AND *DECREE""{}P.'I'EE)V'=,_10.11.1260? PASSED IN
22.A.N0.42/39 Q!'¥'*'IfH£*'.. 311,5; 0? 'THE';_"--AD£fsL. DIST, JUDGE,
SHIMOGA, DISNEISSENG '.l.'HE APPEM; vANi)""CONFIRMlNG THE
JUDGMENT ;'AN?'_}-, "E3E§.'.REI3}--._V"DA'PEDV ,.:'9.1.s2 PASSED IN
0.s.No.4/66 "EH FILE' 1:')F'='1'H.E'CI\IIL JUDGE, SHIMOGA.
1 B 1HAtiU'2«¢é;i€*:fHé.~Ré.x:x. "
3/0 BY VEaz§«;A*rE;;'s1_{a1As»:" DEAD BY ms
Iia} BVSHA NK.§\.R£'{§JM}&.
, /0. HANUMARTHA, mo
_MMOR__ .....
}~IOUSE.H'0.LD WORK
"R;:.:2' NO .'69, 'SRINAGAR
1(b)=-..__B H .vEN1'~:ATEswAMY
9;./O {ATE HANUMANFHA RAG
MP.uJ_€2R
n s Rxci' BHADRAVATHI
' T R RUKMINI W10 '1' NARAYANA RAO
MAJOR
R/O NOA59, SRINAGAR
BANGALORE
9
II
B N Ti-IULASI DEVI
w/0 LATE D N NEELAKNTA RAG!
MAJOR
R/O No.69, SRHVAGAR
BANGALORE
B H YASHODA
W10 A R' SHIVASHANKAR
MAJCBR ' A. 5
R/0 No.69, SRWAGAFJ - '
BANGALORE
B H ANASi}'r?:, , 3: ..
3/o HAHU,M&NT§iA RA€)._
MAJOR." '-
R/O NO..§9';:..SRINAf3AI§ _' ..
"
Br1NAc;p..RAa'j"-..AA * ' '
S/' OuHANUMAN"~£'HA rA«(;:~.
svmaoza ~ -
R/0 Nc>";:39,; SRi'NAG_AR~~~ "
;j_=3'ArsQALoRE _ " '
_ ""5 HA"BHARATH11§m'
A %Vs1:JcE%33.gAn REPDBY HER LR
NO. Ha}
" _ B H RA'r&5,1%R1sHnA
'*8/cs.' HANUMANTHA RAG
MAJOR
R/C':-No.69, SRINAGAR
A' ' BANGALORE
33 H MANGALA
9/0 HANUMANPHA RAG
MAJOR
R/0 No.59, STRINAGA
BANGALORE
5|
% L " % 171%
1 0
may
10(3)}
109:)
laid)
l0(e)
10(1)
10(g)
B N RUDRAPFA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NEELAMMA
W/O LATE. B.N. RUDRAPPA
MAHENDRA
SfO LATE B.N. RUDRAPPA
GANGA
SfO LATE B.N. RUDRAPPA V
SHANKARA
S/O LATE B.N. RUDRAPPA
LOKANNA .
s/0 LATE 1334. RUDRAPPA ~_
m;mm%%Li%% V
SIQ L£'sTE,BL ' '
NAGARATHNA'-- " " J
D [0 LATE am. '§?.'U}3 Ri?u'"PA
REPONDENTS' r«IQ...w(a) TO zoig ALL AREMAJCRS
A "%11R;<3'%opz>;s.A.v. COLLEGE
. = .. 'VB:.11,m1=~1.1:"<~.a., BHADRAVATHI TALUK
V _ SH1h£QC}AAVDI§}TRICF--5?7 301
11
i3 N VEERKPPA
'"4-SINCE DEAD BY Lies
BASMVARAJ S/O LATE BN. VEERANNA
AGED MAJOR, RIO SIRIYUR
v BHADRAVATH} TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-5'77 301
NANJUNDA SID LATE RN. VEERANNA
MAJOR, RIO OPP: S.A.V. COLLEGE
BULLAPURA, BHAADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA SISTRICT-5?? 301
i:
8
1 SIDDARAMANNA SIC) BASAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
BASAPPA, MAJOR, R/0 JANNAPURA
BHADRAVATHI TQ
2 RANGAMMA
MAJOR, R/O JANNAPURA,
BHADRAVATHI TQ I
3 HALAMMA V
MAJOR, R/O JAlV'NAPURA,.*
BHADRAVATHI TQ - "
4 RANGAMMA
MAJOR, R/O JANNA._Pi}RA,
BHADRAVATHITQ % x
5 BasA1s_mAA'D"«".V--~.__:"» - -
MA;.I_OR._ R10 Jfi.NNA?1Ji?A,_.
BHADRAVATHI 'I"'Q' _ '
6 SHANKA1bi'MA"V =
. igamofi, R 10" JANNA.PURA,
- .D._BHéxDF:AVATH!
. , RESPOIIDENTB
IN RSA No. soziaooa
(ByS:'i:'v 3 Sfizfimma, ADV. FOR R14'-24)
"'"1'H1s,AéPEAL IS FILED U]?-.100 cm AGAINST THE
JFJDGMEF-f}"' AND DEGREE DATED 10.1.2002 PASSED IN
" "Pf.?A{.l'iC}.44/89 ON THE F}LE OF THE ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,
' DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
_ 'JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 19.1.82 PASSED IN
V' "O.S.;NG.52/69 0N THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SHIMQGA.
These Appeals coming on hr hearing, this day, the
Court defivered the following 2
1
'1
JUBGMENT
Since oomzaun questions
appeals, they have been clubbed ' . "
this common judment.
2. In RSA sun' 1va' sa
Rae, since vvbyx L.Rs. mm:
in o.s.No.52/69
mad the
In very same appellants have
md dccret: passed in ().S.No.4/66
"v._V(o;§1"a:so.%_;a:;5;§)ma the judgment passed in R.A.No.42/89.
'$0.504/02, once again 61: very same
qlmstianed the judgment and damn: passed
& k G;S_.uN§{26[68 (old No.22[66] and the judgment passed in
4%.'JA%1R§;3V.i¢a§43/39.
3. It is to be stated at the outsct that the rival
centcntions urged by the plaintiflh and the defendants
J»
-
0
leading to the merits of the case in .313 these I'-00-.A .4 not be advcrrtcd ta in detail while .' ibr the reason that the issue which {hr ' is 3 Film substantial 3 as hen"; under:
":3 yazwgher IC-ourt has applied; its: citcumstancses of thy: mag ':22; had. t<:e----v§<3lI(:§vv the judgncnt of tn}; 7 I34, 135/1973 which arofié Vottawoft ti"-1:9: and whether this Court tu':'}d._ that u.;1;e"judg;m{ent and decree: passed in ' _ & ~ amount to msjudimta."
'' 13¢: facts however to be not:u:sod' is that in (old Ne-.14]63), the plaintiffs therein had a declarafion that the plaintiff' is the owner of the schedule property described in 'A' and 'B' sclwdulc to ' *t11¢':: plaint. The said suit was instituted by Sn' B.V. Hanumantha Rao and the appellant herein was the L .' ' defendant. In o.s.Ne.52/.69, the appcllmt _: "
the suit against Sn' injunction again' at the defcndamts ' ' 2 V entering upon the suit the peaceful posscssion of In O.S.Nu.26/68 (old me. 3~.e1~§;éud.;; and Sri 3.24. f: 7s*:zieteVTia%:g;a:inet Sri av. Hanumantha?' a judgment and decree am the owners and an: in eehedule pmperty and the defendants V'hL * neg._ title and intcmst in the suit am, the issues in the said three to use}: other and the Insult in one eee:eeee%-n:.'eeeae,;eeeeet on the other, therefmt: all the tmee 'esuitlv. Qvslfsetllede .'V 4' together is not in dispute. A V. , _5. 'ea? the first msemoe, the trial Court by its gudgment 1973 dlsxms" ' sad the suit of the appellant hen::m' O.S.No.52/69 and consequently deemed the other J 4 I suits 'm ().S.No.26/88 (old No. 22/66) and x No. 14/53). Aga:m' at the sa1d' judgment and A"
2x.4.1973, the appellant hemin was héfirw-.tAl1i§§ REA V 1403.133, 134, 135/1973. The said Iéi:A_s.7§§z&ic judgment dated 12/17.9.19-79;} _u,e sa.za 'app¢:aA V of the questiens which for fiéfom a~¥Ion'bk:
D1v1' 'sion Bench of this mu: jg the finding of the Court below that; ti1e"é.iiit::§;f; herein who were by res judicata in v1cw' of tfig mam" : ' rjx§&gea.L in 0.S.No.50/57 mm' the co11te11tiV'(nz.V Saves' parties involved in the present < °we:f_nr:. «parties to the said suit in 0.8. No.
7..5C«[V5'Z.1'vTha§v'}§Gn'ble Division Bench of this Court wme of the matter in the said judgment . I 'V(iatcci.4"'1§2}v1.7..§;.19V79 had 00111:: to a categorical fintfmg that H K zmggnggs in the judgment in the said 0.S.No.50/57 would
-..;.I3(2'.')'I3'.! as its judicata in the present suit. it is in that T the judgmcxmt dated 21.4.1973 was set aside and all "thethrecwcreremandedtotbetIia1C0mttoresto1ethc 1;
1' suits and dead' :2 the same afresh. On such H suits, the 1113' I Court has judgment dated 19.1.1932. Thougl1_ have been passed in all the' s,ui§s,. ms; lhc plaillfifi in O.S.No.52/1959 herein seeking for permanent of the suit schadulc lxvas fl of the dismissal of in O.S.Ne.4/66 (old .. (old No.22/66) were deemed thcmm and against the appellants liurzvezn, " here'm therefor: being by sl=:paz'atc judgncnts dated 19.1.1982 Appellate Court in a regular appeal filed arm.
' 6. vTl:r.nappcal against the judgzncnt in 0.S.No.4/66 l'{9ld No.~3fl;';6.l3) was numbered as RA No.42/89. The appeal judgment in O.S.No.52/69 was numbered as RA The appeal agamst judgment in 0.S.No.2*6/68 J '1 (old No.22/66) was numbered as RA b Appellate Court after considering the fimt appeal however V passed 'm the three suits by judgo1e;"§.€1s;1??lVoated 10.1.2002 only on to The appefianle therein axe befole this Court in co
7. tile appeal on 28.6.2002 hm: questions of law for consideratioiz, the fact that the Eat issue is suostoniia1..___q1tesfion of iaw with regard to the earlier judment of this Court in RFA 19:23 and in that View whether the V have once again adverted to the issue .4 'res-jud1ca' ta, the second substantial question of not arms' for consideration That bemg' so, insofizr VT first substantial question of law which is framed, I " heard Srj R. Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants J:
'E I6
8. Further a perusal of the judgment passed by the F:'rrst Appeflatc Court would indicate that even thoug};:"--t_be trial Court had framed the other issues 2330 mzatggg 7£h,é«.% merits of the rival claims put forth by the H Court had not adverted to those tfic V the tnaI' Court had come to its &dings given on issues No.1, {he issue of 'ieé. j1id:;_ bare' V 331 of the judwent passed «the Qyurt as well as the #11111' Court would indicette. Courts beiow had not advelted
- to the of théfiveas claims, but has based their decision 'the Ielaflmg to res judicata and has come a co.-'qeiasioj: Eldixtga Iendemd 'm O.S.No.50/57 as ms judicata. The 3% judment and by the trial com in 0.S.Nm3.52/69, 4/66 (old e.e.eN§;;L4/63) 3116 26/53 (old No.22/66} and the judgment " by the First Appellate Ceurt "m RA No.42/89, HR.A.No.4~3/89 and in R.A.No.44~f89 «cannot be sustained, since the same is contrary to the &d%mgs E1» . Hon'b1e Division Bench of this Court in RFA N:§j'1.3:3§;'%: ' 135/73. That being 30, an this sale: V' of the trial Court as well as the Fi:~s£';Ap:§¢I1§t.cl be sustained.
9. Since the has noticed that the trial Cam. has 130$' iesues relating to the matt1t;z§t;':j;VaH&V': Qvoutd have to be new reeonsidexed the other issues. Shnce the evidence ha; V nied by the ma' Court on all the there no necessity to pmvide further parties to tender evidence. As such, the now proceed to consider the evidence on all other issues on the merits of the u " * 'ts excluding the ground reiating to res judicata. eseessizzg the evidence that has already been tendered by T "thetpartics after hearing the learned counsel on this aspect 3 u V of the matter, the uial court ska}! pass its judgment and A A O proceedings. It is made clear that if any of "
are not rcpresezlted by their Iea1ncd:=.pouns§gil, A' ahall issue notice to such of .
Accmtiingly, all the tbltc épiieals are In the peculiar facts them shalt be no erdctr as to ' Q'