Karnataka High Court
Sri. R.K Rudraradhya vs Sri. R Rudraradhya on 12 December, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2019 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R. K. RUDRARADHYA,
S/O. LATE KANTHAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. MANJUNATH,
S/O. LATE B. K. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. BHARATHI,
D/O. LATE B. K. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
Digitally 3. CHAMPA ,
signed by
VANDANA S W/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
Location:
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OF RESIDING AT NO. 186,
KARNATAKA
BASAPPA COLONY,
WARD NO. 2, YAMALUR,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
4. SHADAKSHRARADHYA,
S/O. LATE B. K RUDRARADYA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO. 1, 2 AND 4 ARE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
RESIDING AT RAJAPURA
VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
560 099.
5. KUSUMA,
W/O. CHIDANANDAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 3,
1st MAIN ROAD,
VYALIKAVAL,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K. P. SHRAVAN MADHAV., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. R. RUDRARADHYA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT. RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BEGNALURU RURAL
DISTRICT - 560 099.
2. R. JAYADEVA,
S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA,
HAL POST, BANGALORE,
SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
3. R. RENUKA PRASAD,
S/O. LATE B. RUDRADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA,
HAL POST, BENGALURU,
SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.
4. R. VEDAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT. RAJAPURA
VILLAGE,
HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
5. R. MANJUNATH,
S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
C/O. R. JAYADEVA,
R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA,
HAL POST, BENGALURU,
SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.
6. R. PUSHPA,
W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA,
D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 4/1,
MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
CHIKKABASAVANAPURA
DEVASANDRA,
K.R. PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
7. R. SUNANDA,
W/O. MALLIKARJUNA,
D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 7/1,
YELLAMMA STREET,
DOMMALURU,
HAL ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
8. R. AMBIKA,
W/O. BASAVARAJU,
D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT. KENGERI,
MEGALA BEEDHI,
HAL POST, BENGLURU,
SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.
9. SRI. B. RENUKA SHIVACHARYA SWAMY,
S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
R/AT. RAJAPURA MUTT,
RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
SRI. B. CHANNA BASAVARADHYA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
10. C. VISHWANATH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
10(A) MAMATHA,
D/O LATE VISHWANATH,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HINNAKKI VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST,
JIGNI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
NAGABHUSHAN,
10(B) S/O LATE VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HINNAKKI VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGNI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
11. C. NATARAJ,
S/O. LATE CHANNA BASAVARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT.,
HINNAKKI VILLAGE,
HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
12. C. UMESH,
S/O. LATE B. CHANNA BASAVARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
COMPUTER DEPARTMENT,
K.H.B. KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
13. C. SHASHIDHAR,
S/O. LATE B CHANNA BASAVARADHYA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
AUDITOR, NO. 20,
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
ASHOK HOTEL,
AVENUE ROAD,
BENGLAURU - 560 002.
14. SRI. KALAKALA NARASIMHA REDDY,
S/O. YEAR RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT. 123/14,
6th MAIN, KAGGADASAPURA,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGLAURU - 560 093.
15. SRI. N.V. RAMANA REDDY,
S/O. SUBBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
16. SRI. NALLA PAPI REDDY.,
@ MANJUNATH REDDY,
S/O. RAMANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
BOTH RESPONDENTS
NO. 15 AND 16 ARE
R/AT. 95/4, GREEN MEADOWS,
NEAR KOPPA GATE,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.
17. VENGIGALLA VENU,
MADHAVA RAO,
S/O. BRAHMAN GOPALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT. SULURA VILLAGE,
BHODANA MANDAL,
NIZAMABAD DISTRICT,
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
ANDHRAPRADESH - 503 180.
18. SMT. VALIVATTI DITARAAMMA,
W/O. VALIVATTI VENKAIAH M.,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/AT. CHINNAVADIPUDI VILLAGE,
MANGALAGIRI MANDAL,
GUNTUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503.
19. THE COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
20. SRI. R. K. RAJASHEKARAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
20(A). TRUPTI KUMARI,
D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDENT OF CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE,
BANNAHALLI ROAD, ATHIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
20(B). R. KANTHARAJU,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
20(C). R. SHANMUKHAYA,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
20(D). HEMAVATHI,
D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
20(E). MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, A
GED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
20(F). RAVISHANKAR,
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
20(G). MANGALA,
D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF HEELALIGE VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21. SRI. R. K. SHIVANANDAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
21(A). S. BASAVARAJ,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(B). S. MADHU,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(C). S. NALINAKSHI,
D/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(D). S. GIRISH,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(E). S. NAGESH,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
21(F). S. GANESH KUMAR,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
NOW DEAD BY LR,
RAJESHWARI. G,
W/O LATE GANESH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.105,
SURYA NAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
LIG 2ND BLOCK, ANEKAL ROAD,
CHANDAPURA,
BANGALORE - 560 099.
21(G). S. SHANTH KUMAR,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(H). S. MENAKA,
D/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.
21(I). S. UMESH,
S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
22. SRI. R. K. SIDDARAJU WADAYAR,
S/O. LATE KANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 20 TO 22 ARE.,
R/AT. RAJAPURA VILLAGE,
HENNAGARA POST,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BEGNALURU RURAL
DISTRICT - 560 099.
23. KRB INFRATECH LIMITED,
REGISTER COMPANY,
OFFICE NO.1, 1ST FLOOR,
8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT,
TATA NAGAR,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 094,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R4, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
11, 12,
13 AND R10(A) AND R10(B).,
SRI. AJIT KALYAN., ADVOCARE FOR R17,
SRI. RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R19,
SRI. G. S. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R21(A) TO R21(I),
R9, 20 AND 22 ARE SERVED).
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.12 IN OS
NO.1814/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANEKAL ALLOWING THE IA NO.12 FILED UNDER SEC11 R/W.
SEC..151 OF CPC. FOR DISMISS THE SUIT AS THE SAME IS
HIT BY PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
RFA No. 836 of 2019
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1814/2006 is directed
against the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 passed on I.A.No.12
by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Anekal whereby the said
application filed by respondent No.10-defendnat No.3(a) under
Section 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking dismissal of the
suit as barred by res judicata was allowed by the Trial Court, which
consequently proceeded to dismiss the suit, by passing the
impugned order, which is assailed in the present appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
appellants-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the
respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of
their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and for
other reliefs. In the said suit, respondent No.10-defendnt No.3(a)
in addition to filing his written statement, also filed an instant
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
application-I.A.No.12 seeking dismissal of the suit, inter alia
contending that the earlier suit in O.S.No.148/1998 filed by the
appellants-plaintiffs had been dismissed, as a result of which the
present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata.. The said
application having been opposed by the appellants-plaintiffs, the
Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing
I.A.No.12 and consequently dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which
the appellants-plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present
appeal.
4. It is relevant to state that since the present appeal
arises out of the impugned order passed on I.A. No.12 filed by
respondent No.10-defendant No.3(a), notice to other unserved
respondent is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the
appeal.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned
counsel for the appellants submits that in the facts of the instant
case, the issues/questions as regards the suit being barred by res
judicata give rise to a mixed question of fact and law which is
impermissible to be treated as a preliminary issue as held by the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
Apex Court in the case of SATHYANATH & ANOTHER VS.
SAROJAMANI in Civil Appeal No.3680/2022 (arising out of SLP
(Civil) No.20375/2021). It is submitted that various contentious
issues, including complicated/disputed questions of law and facts
as regards all aspects of the matter, including the defence of res
judicata, arising for consideration in the suit, would necessarily
have to be discussed only after a full fledged trial by rendering
findings on all issues and the said issue regarding res judicata
cannot be treated as a preliminary issue, particularly, when the trial
Court had not even framed the issues prior to adjudication of
I.A.No.12. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed
by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit to be
restored to file with a direction to the Trial Court to adjudicate upon
all issues by framing them and providing an opportunity to all
parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of
their respective claims.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.10-
defendnat No.3(a) would support the impugned order and submits
that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
7. I have given my anxious consent to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
8. The question/issue as to whether res judicata can be
treated and adjudicated as a preliminary issue, if it involves a
mixed question of fact and law is no longer res integra in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SATHYANATH'S case
(supra).
9. As can be seen from the said judgment, if an
issue/question relating to res judicata arises out of disputed
question of law and facts, the same cannot be treated as a
preliminary issue and the suit cannot be disposed of by deciding
the said issue since it falls outside the scope and ambit of Order 14
Rule 2 of CPC, which permits only pure questions of law to be
treated and adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue. In the instant
case, the questions/issues as to whether the present suit is barred
by res judicata or not as contended by respondent No.10 -
defendant No.3 arise out of a mixed question of fact and law, which
would necessarily require oral and documentary evidence to be
adduced by both sides. Further it is relevant to state that the Trial
Court has not framed issues in the instant suit and the question of
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
passing any orders on I.A.No.12 by deciding the questions/issues
as regards res judicata even prior to framing of issues would not
arise in the facts of the instant case.
10. Under these circumstance, in the light of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SATHYANATH'S case (supra),
I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court misdirected itself
in allowing I.A.No.12 by coming to the erroneous conclusion that
the suit was barred by res judicata, which issue would have to be
decided only after a full fledged trial along with other issues after
providing sufficient and reasonable opportunities to all the parties.
11. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
a) Appeal is hereby allowed.
b) The impugned order passed on I.A.No.12 is set aside.
c) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 in
O.S.No.1814/2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge,
JMFC, Anekal is hereby set aside.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:45754
d) I.A.No.12 filed by respondent No10-defendnat No.3(a) is
disposed of directing the Trial Court to frame and decide
all issues including the issues/contentions urged by
respondent No.10-defendnat No.3(a) in I.A.No.12.
e) The Trial Court is directed to frame issues and dispose of
the suit in accordance with law by rendering findings on
all issues as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Order.
f) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including
the plea of res judicata are kept open to be decided by
the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KTY
CT:SNN
