Bangalore District Court
Rangalakshmi vs Ramanna K on 11 November, 2025
1
O.S. No.3305/2015
KABC010083652015
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L. L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 11th day of November, 2025.
O.S. No.3305/2015
PLAINTIFF :: Smt. Rangalaxmi, D/o. Late. Kempaiah,
W/o. Late. Nanjundaiah, Aged about 49
years, Major, Hindu, R/at: # 63/3, 5 th Cross,
Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension, Near
Vaiyalikaval Bus Stop, Malleshwaram Post,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Sri. M.V.Revanasiddaiah, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. K.Ramanna, S/o. Late. Kempaiah, Aged
about 53 years, Major, Hindu, R/at: # 63/3, 5 th
Cross, Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension,
Near Vaiyalikaval Bus Stop, Malleshwaram
Post, Bengaluru - 560 003.
2
O.S. No.3305/2015
:: 2. S. Shankar, S/o. Late. Seetharamaiah,
Since dead by his LR.
Balaji, S/o. S.Shankar, Aged about 32 years,
R/at: No.108, Nagananda Nilaya, Vishwa
Prakruthi Layout, Near BIML Showroom,
Maruthi Nagar, 2nd Division, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
:: 3. S.Prakash Kumar, S/o. Late.
Seetharamaiah, Aged about 62 years,
:: 4. Smt. S.Pramiladevi, D/o. Late.
Seetharamaiah, Aged about 55 years,
Dfts. No.3 & 4 are Majors, Hindus, R/at: #
659, 5th Main Road, Viyalikaval Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Sri. R.Suresh, Adv. D-1)
(By Sri. Satyanarayan S. Chalke, Adv. for
LRs. of D-2)
(By Sri. D.P.Shiva Prasad, Adv. for D-4)
(D- 3 - Dead)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 08-04-2015
Nature of the Suit :: PARTITION
Date of commencement of :: 13-11-2019
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment :: 11-11-2025
was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
10 07 03
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3
O.S. No.3305/2015
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs ½ share in the suit schedule property and for consequential relief permanent injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as hereunder:-
One Sri. Kempaiah and Smt. Boramma are the parents of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The suit schedule property was allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff Late. Kempaiah by the then CITB vide allotment order dated 22.09.1967 and possession of the said site was also given vide possession certificate dated 23.09.1968. Thereafter, CITB executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Late. Kempaiah vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1983. Based on the sale deed khata is effected to the name of Late. Kempaiah and he paid tax to the B.B.M.P. During his life time, he constructed a dwelling house in the suit site after approval of plan and obtaining license from B.B.M.P. The said Kempaiah occupied the house and lived along 4 O.S. No.3305/2015 with his wife and children i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1. After the death of their mother Boramma, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and Late. Kempaiah continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said Kempaiah died on 06.06.2007 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to succeed his estate and therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only surviving legal heirs of Late. Kempaiah. Since Kempaiah died intestate, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have equal share in the suit schedule property. Even after, the marriage the plaintiff continued to live in the suit schedule house, since her husband was not having own house. The husband of plaintiff died on 2002. Even today the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are living in the suit schedule house. It is stated that on 05.04.2015, the defendants No.2 to 4 came near the suit schedule property and insisted the plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff demanded for her share with defendant No.1, to 5 O.S. No.3305/2015 which the defendant No.1 did not oblige. Hence, left with no choice the present suit is filed.
3. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.1 to 4 caused appearance through their counsel. The defendant No.1 who is the brother of the plaintiff though caused appearance, has not chosen to file written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.2 died and his legal heirs were brought on record. However neither the defendant No.2 nor his legal heirs have chosen to contest the suit by filing written statement. The defendant No.3 also died during the pendency of the suit and he was unmarried and by filing memo, it is stated that the defendant No.1 is the only surviving legal heir of deceased defendant No.3.
4. The defendants No.3 and 4 have in their written statement categorically denied the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the present 6 O.S. No.3305/2015 suit is filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No.1. It is stated that the grandmother of defendants No.2 to 4 by name Smt. Muninanjamma was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.5 and 5/1 of Jodiranganathapura now called as Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension, Rajmahal Guttahalli, measuring East to West 120 ft. and North to South 30 ft., having purchased the same in 3 bits under 3 different sale deeds dated 27.06.1953, 13.07.1953 & 12.07.1956 from its previous owner Muniveerappa. In the year 1959, the father of the defendant No.1 by name Kempaiah and another person Sri. Madaiah approached Smt. Muninanjamma and requested her to permit them to put up two temporary huts on the eastern portion of the said property measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 30 ft. on the eastern side which was vacant and abutting to Vyailikaval main road. The said Smt. Muninanjamma permitted them to put up two huts measuring 12 ft. X 10 ft. each on a ground rent of 7 O.S. No.3305/2015 Rs.15/- p.m. and they started residing in the hut. In the year 1989, the said Kempaiah attempted to dig a foundation to construct a house in the place of hut without having any manner of right, title or interest. Therefore, Muninanjamma was constrained to file a suit for declaration of her title and for recovery of possession in O.S. No.2191/1989 against Kempaiah and Madaiah. In the said suit, Kempaiah had contended that he was the owner of the said property and he was allotted site No.63 measuring 20 ft. X 25 ft. by CITB under allotment order dated 22.09.1967 and that he was put in possession vide possession certificate dated 23.09.1968 and that the CITB had executed registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1983. It was his further defense that the land of Muninanjamma was acquired by CITB and hence, she ceased to be the owner of the said property. He further denied the he was in permissive possession on ground rent of Rs.15/- and the another defendant Madaiah did not contest the suit. During the pendency of 8 O.S. No.3305/2015 the suit, Smt. Muninanjamma died on 04.05.1991 and thereafter, the defendants No.2 and 3 herein prosecuted the suit as her legal representative. Subsequently, the said Kempaiah also died on 06.06.2007 and defendant No.1 herein was brought on record as his legal representative. The suit came to be decreed on merits as per judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009. Consequently, the defendant No.1 challenged the judgment and decree before Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.582/2009 and it also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2015. The defendant No.2 herein filed Execution Petition No.621/2015 against the defendant No.1 and Madaiah for delivery of vacant possession of the said property and the same is pending for consideration. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have colluded with each other and filed the suit with a malafide intention to avoid delivery of vacant possession in execution proceeding. The plaintiff under the guise of the present suit for partition is 9 O.S. No.3305/2015 seeking the same relief as claimed in the earlier suit which is not permissible under law. It is stated that the plaintiff was well aware of the proceedings in the earlier suit and she claims to be residing along with defendant No.1 and in spite of it, she did not participate in the proceeding in the previous suit and only with a malafide intention she abstained herself from participating the previous proceeding and now by suppressing material facts has filed the present suit in collusion with defendant No.1 and hence, the suit is not maintainable. It is stated that neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 have any manner of right, title or interest over the property bearing No.5/1 measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 30 ft. which is finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
5. Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and defendants No.3 & 4. Perused records.
10
O.S. No.3305/2015
6. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned the following ;
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit property is joint family property of herself and defendant No.1 ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction ?
3. Whether plaintiff is hit by principles of res-
judicata ?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought ?
5. What order or decree ?
7. In order to discharge the burden cast upon her, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and relied upon 19 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 and closed the evidence.
8. The defendant No.4 got examined herself as D.W.1 and relied upon 6 documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 and closed the evidence.
11
O.S. No.3305/2015
9. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.2 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.3 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE NO.4 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.5 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
10. ISSUES NO.1, 2 & 4 :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
Suit is one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs ½ share in the suit schedule property and for consequential relief permanent injunction to restrain defendants No.2 to 4 from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule house till possession is handed over in accordance with law.
11. Learned counsel for plaintiff in his arguments submits that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 acquired the suit schedule property vide allotment 12 O.S. No.3305/2015 order issued by CITB dated 22.09.1967 and possession certificate was issued and later, registered Sale Deed was executed by B.D.A. on 16.11.1983 and all the documents stood in the name of Kempaiah and he died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his surviving legal heirs and hence, the plaintiff being the daughter of Late. Kempaiah, being his class-1 legal heir is entitled for equal share as per Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as such, she is entitled for relief of partition. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2191/1989 and in RFA No.582/2009 are not binding on the plaintiff and it is binding only on the defendant No.1 as the plaintiff was not party to the earlier suit and hence, the judgment and decree passed in the previous suit is not executable as against the plaintiff. It is further submitted since the date of purchase, the plaintiff along with defendant No.1 and her parents was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and she is still in possession and is 13 O.S. No.3305/2015 residing in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff by producing cogent oral and documentary evidence has proved that her father had acquired the suit schedule property under sale deed and after his demise, the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit property by virtue of inheritance and sought to decree the suit.
12. On the contrary, learned counsel for defendants No.3 and 4 in his arguments submits that the plaintiff knowing fully well about the pendency of the previous suit has intentionally abstained herself from participating in the earlier proceeding and after the decree being passed, in collusion with defendant No.1 has filed the present suit by suppressing true facts and in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2191/1989 which is also confirmed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.582/2009 the suit is hit by principles of res-judicata and judgment and decree passed in the said suit is binding on the plaintiff and the present suit is 14 O.S. No.3305/2015 filed with an intention to evade the proceedings in Ex. No.621/2015 and the suit property was not allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and they are not in possession of the suit property as alleged and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and sought for dismissal of suit.
13. Having heard the arguments putforth by both the counsels this Court proceeds to analyze the evidence placed on record.
14. In the instant suit, the plaintiff claims that the suit property is the joint family property of herself and defendant No.1 and the suit property was acquired by her father under registered Sale Deed executed by B.D.A. dated 16.11.1983 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and her father during his life time had constructed house and the plaintiff along with defendant No.1 is residing in the suit schedule property and since her right over the suit 15 O.S. No.3305/2015 property was denied by defendant No.1 and he refused to allot share, the present suit is filed.
15. The defendants No.1 and 2 have left the suit uncontested and on the contrary, the defendants No.3 and 4 have raised a defense that their grandmother Smt. Muninanjamma was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the father of the plaintiff was put in possession on the basis of permissive possession and they had illegally put up construction of building the schedule property and it is their contention that the grandmother of these defendants had filed suit in O.S. No.2191/1989 seeking declaration of her title and the suit is decreed and the same is confirmed by Hon'ble High Court and hence, the father of the plaintiff had no right over the schedule property and hence, the plaintiff has not derived any right and as such, is not entitled for the relief claimed. So now the point that needs to be adjudicated is as to whether the suit property was allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff by the then 16 O.S. No.3305/2015 CITB and possession certificate was issued and by virtue of registered Sale Deed the father of the plaintiff was the absolute owner and the property is inherited by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 after his demise. Hence, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish the same.
16. In order to discharge the burden cast upon the plaintiff she got examined herself as P.W.1 and has in her evidence deposed that the suit schedule site was allotted in favour of her father by the then CITB vide allotment order dated 22.09.1967 and possession was issued vide possession certificate dated 23.09.1968 and later, CITB executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Late. Kempaiah vide sale deed dated 16.11.1983. Based on the sale deed khata is transfer to the name of Kempaiah and he regularly paid tax to the concerned authority. She has deposed that during the life time of her father he constructed residential house in the suit property and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 along with her parents resided together in the suit property and 17 O.S. No.3305/2015 after demise of the parents, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the surviving legal heirs of Late. Kempaiah continued to live in the suit schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the plaintiff, since her parents died intestate she being the legal heir of her deceased father is entitled for her legitimate ½ share in the suit property and hence, the suit is filed.
17. In support of her evidence P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.8 which is the certified copy of the registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1983 which shows B.D.A. has executed sale deed in favour of father of the plaintiff Kempaiah in respect of the suit schedule site. Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 are the khata certificate, khata extracts which shows the name of the father of the plaintiff Kempaiah in the B.B.M.P. records. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 are the tax paid receipts for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 respectively which shows tax is regularly paid to B.B.M.P. by the plaintiff. Ex.P.9 is the 18 O.S. No.3305/2015 death certificate of the father of the plaintiff which shows he died on 06.06.2007. P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.14 which are the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, ration card, Aadhar card of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and their father Kempaiah which shows the suit property as their residential address. Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 are the Encumbrance Certificates which shows no encumbrance is created over the suit property from 01.04.1996 upto the year 2019. So relying on these documents, P.W.1 has contended that the property has been purchased by her father from the B.D.A. and after his demise, she being one of the legal heirs has succeeded to the property and as such, is entitled for share.
18. P.W.1 in her cross-examination pleads ignorance about the filing of earlier suit by Smt. Muninanjamma and as to the judgment and decree passed therein and also about the judgment and decree 19 O.S. No.3305/2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.582/2009. However, she admits that she has filed an objector application in Execution Petition No.621/2015 and denies that her application is rejected and possession warrant is issued. She also admits she has not challenged the order passed in execution petition and suggestion putforth that the plaintiff having knowledge of the previous suit has intentionally not participated in the earlier proceedings and has filed the present suit by suppressing material facts are all categorically denied by P.W.1.
19. On the contrary, the defendant No.4 got examined herself as D.W.1 and she has in her evidence deposed that her grandmother Smt. Muninanjamma had purchased the property bearing No.5 and 5/1 of then Jodiranaganathapura now called Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension, Rajmahal Guttahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West 120 ft. and North to South 30 ft. in three bits under three different sale deeds dated 27.06.1953, 20 O.S. No.3305/2015 13.07.1953 and 12.07.1956 respectively. It is stated that in the year 1959, the father of plaintiff by name Kempaiah and another person Madaiah approached their grandmother and requested them to permit to put up two temporary huts on the eastern portion of the said property bearing No.5/1. As per the permission granted by Smt. Muninanjamma, the said Kempaiah and Madaiah put up two huts measuring 12 ft. X 10 ft. each on a ground rent of Rs.15/- and started residing therein. In the year 1989, the said Kempaiah made attempts to put up a house in the place of hut without having any manner of right and hence, Smt. Muninanjamma filed O.S. No.2191/1989 as against the Kempaiah and Madaiah for relief of declaration of her title and recovery of possession and the suit came to be decreed and the father of the plaintiff Kempaiah filed RFA No.582/2009 which also came to be dismissed on 12.02.2015. The defendant No.2 has filed Execution Petition No.621/2015 for delivery of vacant possession and the 21 O.S. No.3305/2015 same is still pending for consideration and in order to evade and avoid the delivery of vacant possession in execution proceeding, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in collusion with defendant No.1. It is stated that the plaintiff had also filed interim application in execution petition which also came to be dismissed on 07.02.2024. Thus the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being well aware of the proceedings in the earlier suit have filed this collusive suit and the plaintiff has intentionally remained abstained from participating in the earlier proceeding and by suppressing material facts the present suit is filed and the neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 have any right over the suit schedule property and contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
20. D.W.1 has relied upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 which are the certified copies of judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2191/1989 and RFA No.582/2009 which shows the said suit was filed by Smt. 22 O.S. No.3305/2015 Muninanjamma as against Kempaiah and Madaiah seeking relief of declaration of her title and for possession of the property bearing No.5/1, Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension, Rajmahal Guttahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 30 ft. In the said suit, the said Smt. Muninanjamma has pleaded in the plaint about the acquisition of her title over the said property and she has stated that she had purchased the suit property under three registered Sale Deeds in three bits dated 12.07.1956, 13.07.1953 & 27.06.1953 and she became the owner of total extent measuring East to West 120 ft. and North to South 30 ft. and she has also stated that the said Kempaiah and Madaiah were permitted to be in possession of the suit property by putting up two temporary huts and they were paying ground rent of Rs.15/- each and they have put up hut measuring 10 ft. X 12 ft. each and since attempts were made by Kempaiah and Madaiah to put up building over the 23 O.S. No.3305/2015 schedule property, the said suit was filed for declaration of her title and for possession.
21. In the said suit, the said Kempaiah caused appearance and filed written statement wherein which he has claimed that he has the absolute owner of the property bearing site No.63 where he has put up construction of house building in an extent of 20 ft. X 25 ft. and is in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner and he has categorically stated that CITB had allotted the said site and issued possession certificate and executed registered Sale Deed on 16.11.1983 and has constructed dwelling house. He has contended that the CITB had acquired the land and hence, the plaintiff had ceased to be the owner in possession of the said property and has denied that he is in permissive possession of the property. Thus, whatever the claim that is putforth by the plaintiff, in the present suit was putforth by her father in the previous 24 O.S. No.3305/2015 suit. The said suit came to be decreed, by holding that the Muninanjamma has succeeded in proving her title over the schedule property and that Kempaiah had failed to prove his right over the suit schedule property. In the said judgment there is an observation that, the land which was acquired by CITB has been de notified which is evident from the endorsement issued by the SLAO and the defendant has failed to establish his the right over the schedule property. Consequent to which, the suit came to be decreed and Smt. Muninanjamma who is the grandmother of defendants No.2 to 4 is declared as absolute owner and the said Kempaiah and Madaiah are directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises to the plaintiff within two months.
22. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed, Kempaiah preferred RFA No.582/2009 which also came to be dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of 25 O.S. No.3305/2015 Karnataka on 12.02.2015. Ex.D.6 shows that the defendants have filed Execution Petition No.621/2015 seeking execution of the judgment and decree passed and in the said petition, the plaintiff herein filed objector application under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2024. So these documents relied upon by the defendants establishes that the issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the present suit were also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit and the Court has adjudicated all the issues and has declaring the right of grandmother of defendants and has negated the right of father of the plaintiff which is also affirmed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.582/2009. So nothing is forthcoming from records to show that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have challenged the judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.582/2009. So by this, it can be presumed that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 26 O.S. No.3305/2015 No.2191/1989 and in RFA No.582/2009 has attained finality which leads to conclusion that the defendants No.2 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property. So when the right of the plaintiff's father is negated in view of the previous litigation, it can be held that the father of the plaintiff had no right over the suit schedule property. So under such circumstances, the plaintiff being his daughter cannot be said to have inherited any right from her father. So under such circumstances, when it is established that the defendants No.2 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property the claim of the plaintiff that suit property is the joint family property and she has vested right of share in the suit property is not tenable. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasonings, this Court proceeds to answer the issues No.1, 2 and 4 in the Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.3 :: Now the question that requires to be adjudicated is as to whether the present 27 O.S. No.3305/2015 suit is hit by principles of res-judicata. It is necessary to note that res-judicata is a fundamental principle of law that bars the relitigation of a case that has been conclusively decided by a competent court. Once a final Judgment has been rendered, the same matter cannot be once again brought before the court. For the doctrine of res-judicata to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied.
1. The issue which is directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit.
2. The parties in both suits must be the same or claim under the same title.
3. The issue must have been litigated between the same parties in the same capacity.
4. The former suit must have been decided by a court having jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit.
5. The matter must have been heard and finally decided.
6. The former suit must have been decided before the subsequent suit was instituted.
28
O.S. No.3305/2015
24. The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2191/1989 and RFA No.582/2009 shows the said suit was filed by Smt. Muninanjamma as against Kempaiah and Madaiah seeking relief of declaration of her title and for possession of the property bearing No.5/1, Jabbar Block, Maruthi Extension, Rajmahal Guttahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South 30 ft. Admittedly, the issues involved in the present suit were also directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit and the parties in both suits are same and the plaintiff is litigating under the same title. All the issued involved in the present suit has been litigated in the former suit by a court having jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit and it has been heard and decided and it has attained finality. Further Ex.D.5 and Ex.D.6 shows that the defendants have filed Execution Petition No.621/2015 seeking execution of the judgment and decree passed and in the said petition, the plaintiff herein filed objector application under Order 21 Rule 97 29 O.S. No.3305/2015 of C.P.C. which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2024. So under such circumstances when the rights of the plaintiff and her father has been adjudicated in the former suit, the present suit is barred by principles of res-judicata. Hence, this Court proceeds to answer this issue i in the Affirmative.
25. ISSUE NO.5 :: In view of findings on issues, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the suit. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 11 th day of November, 2025).
(VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
P.W.1 :: Rangalaxmi
30
O.S. No.3305/2015
(B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
D.W.1 :: Smt. Pramiladevi
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
Ex.P.1 & :: Khata certificate and khata extract of Ex.P.2 property No.62 Ex.P.3 to :: 5 tax paid receipts Ex.P.7 Ex.P.8 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated 16.11.1983 Ex.P.9 :: Death certificate of Kempaiah Ex.P.10 to :: Original election identity card of Smt. Ex.P.12 K.Rangalaxmi, Sri. Kempaiah and Smt. Boramma Ex.P.13 :: Original ration card Ex.P.14 :: Original Aadhar card of Smt. Rangalaxmi Ex.P.15 :: Khata certificate Ex.P.16 :: Khata extract Ex.P.17 & :: 2 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.18 Ex.P.19 :: Certified copy of deposition in Ex.No.621/2015 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 & :: Certified copies of judgment and decree in Ex.D.2 O.S. No.2191/1989 Ex.D.3 & :: Certified copy of judgment and decree in Ex.D.4 RFA No.582/2009 31 O.S. No.3305/2015 Ex.D.5 :: Certified copy of the order passed in Execution Petition No.621/2015 Ex.D.6 :: Certified copy of the I.A. No.1 filed in Execution Petition No.621/2015 (VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.