Karnataka High Court
Smt. Savitramma P vs Sri Balkrishna Bhat Jannu Since Dead By ... on 19 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
RSA No. 1981 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITRAMMA P,
W/O LATE PAKKIRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 604/60,
SRI. YELUKOTI NILAY, LENIN NAGARA,
NITTUVALLI NEW EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VAIBHAV RAVI MALIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU ,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS,
Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA
MJ
1(A) SMT. PREMA BAI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF W/O BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
1(B). SRI. RAGAVENDRA B BHAT,
S/O BHALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
1(C). SRI. SUDHINDRA B BHAT,
S/O BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
MAJOR, BUSINESS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
RSA No. 1981 of 2023
RESPONDENTS NO.1(A) TO (C) ARE
RESIDING AT: NO.698, MANDIPET,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
1(D). SMT. SAROJA,
W/O VENKATESH R RAIKAR,
D/O BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: VIDYANAGAR,
NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, HARIHARA.
1(E). SMT. ANITHA,
W/O NAGESH G. REVENKAR,
D/O LATE BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. P91, 4TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, BENGALURU.
1(F). SMT. VIJAYA,
W/O MANJUNATHA,
D/O BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 693/5, MANDIPET,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
1(G). SMT. MAMATHA S. VARNEKAR,
W/O SATHISH T. VENKATESH,
D/O LATE BALKRISHNA BHAT JANNU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NALAVAD GALLI, GADAG
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED IN
RA NO.35/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
RSA No. 1981 of 2023
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2022
PASSED IN OS NO.40/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the
unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the concurrent
judgment of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiff's suit
seeking relief of declaration of title and perpetual
injunction is rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, the rank of the parties
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
3. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The plaintiff has instituted the present suit by
contending that her husband has purchased the suit
schedule property under registered sale deeds dated
05.06.1978 and 12.08.1982. The present suit is filed
alleging that the father of the defendant instituted a suit
against her husband seeking relief of declaration and
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
injunction in O.S.No.73/1995. The plaintiff's grievance is
that her husband was addicted to vices and therefore,
managed to secure a decree in O.S.No.73/1995. The
plaintiff contended that her husband, without producing
the title deed, also did not choose to file a written
statement in O.S.No.73/1995 and this was on account of
her husband's arrogant nature, carelessness and
recklessness in not assisting the advocate who appeared
on behalf of the plaintiff. On this set of pleadings, the
present suit is filed seeking relief of declaration and
injunction.
4. The defendants, on receipt of summons,
tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly
denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The
defendants specifically pleaded that there is no cause of
action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. Placing
reliance on a decree passed in O.S.No.73/1995, the
defendants claim that their father's title over the suit
schedule property is given a quietus in view of the decree
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
passed in O.S.No.73/1995. The defendants contended that
the decree passed in O.S.No.73/1995 is confirmed by this
Court in RSA.No.117/2003 and therefore, resisting the suit
on the ground that the present suit is hit by the principles
of resjudicata, sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their
respective claims have let in oral and documentary
evidence.
6. The Trial Court, having taken cognizance of the
judgment rendered in O.S.No.73/1995, answered issue
Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. However, while answering
issue No.5 in the Affirmative, the Trial Court held that the
suit is barred by limitation.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the
appellate Court. The Appellate Court, as a final fact-finding
authority, has independently assessed the entire material
on record. The Appellate Court, while taking cognizance of
the judgment rendered in O.S.No.73/1995, vide Ex.P.24,
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
was of the view that the father of the defendant was held
to be the absolute owner and the husband of the plaintiff,
who was arrayed as defendant, was called upon to hand
over vacant possession. The Appellate Court also found
that plaintiff in cross-examination has admitted the fact
that the father of defendants, by name Balakrishna Bhat
Jannu, has filed suit in O.S.No.73/1995 and relief of
mandatory injunction was granted in an earlier suit calling
upon defendant No.2 to vacate the suit property. The
Appellate Court also found that P.W.1 has admitted that
defendant No.2 in said suit is her husband. She had
further admitted that she had knowledge of the filing of
O.S.No.73/1995 and she also had knowledge that her
husband appeared in the said suit and failed to contest the
suit by filing a written statement. It is in this background,
the Appellate Court was also of the view that the present
suit is clearly barred by limitation as per Article 58 of the
Limitation Act. At paragraph 33 of the judgment, the
Appellate Court has taken cognizance of the fact that the
plaintiff has admitted that she is aware of the decree
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
passed in O.S.No.73/1995 as well as the order passed in
Ex.P.No.55/2005 dated 08.01.2010. It is in this
background, the Appellate Court was also of the view that
the present suit, filed in 2013, is barred by limitation.
These concurrent judgments are under challenge by the
plaintiff.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts
below.
9. On examining the findings recorded by both the
Courts, the Trial Court answered issue No.2 in the
negative and held that the present suit is not hit by the
principles of resjudicata. The Appellate Court, while
entertaining the appeal filed by the plaintiff, has examined
the materials relating to issue No.2. The Appellate Court,
while taking cognizance of the decree passed in
O.S.No.73/1995, however, as a final fact-finding authority,
has reversed the findings recorded on issue No.2 and held
that the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
declaration and injunction is hit by the principles of
resjudicata as the decree passed in O.S.No.73/1995
against the plaintiff's husband has attained finality.
10. While examining the limitation in paragraph
No.33, the Appellate Court has rightly concurred with the
findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court.
Having taken cognizance of the fact that the present
plaintiff was aware of the decree passed in
O.S.No.73/1995 and was also aware of the order passed in
Ex.P.No.55/2005, the Appellate Court was also of the view
that the present suit filed on 10.01.2013 is barred by
limitation.
11. On examining the pleadings, though learned
counsel appearing for plaintiff has tried to persuade this
Court by contending that the sale transactions on which
defendants father is asserting title are fraudulent
documents, I am of the view that there is absolutely no
foundation in the plaint regarding the fraudulent
documents on which the defendants father had filed a suit
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
in O.S.No.73/1995. Paragraph No.4 of the plaint in
O.S.No.40/2013 would chinch the controversy insofar as
alleged fraud is concerned. I deem it fit to cull out
paragraph No.4 of the plaint, which reads as follows:
"That the defendants father by name Sri.
Balkrishna Bhat Jannu had filed the O.S.No.73/1995
against the plaitniff's husband with seeking the relief
of Declaration Possession with Mandatory injunction
of the questioned suit schedule property along with
the adjacent of the suit schedule property as Nituvalli
Village of Re.S.No.51. Plat No.57, 58, and 59 to the
extent of 40 x 90 feet with producing the document
as Pahnies of the said case by the Plaintiff, playing
fraud and with misleading the court and due to the
plaintiff's husband weakness got the decree against
the plaintiff's husband in that case that the plaintiff's
husband did not produced the title deeds of the suit
schedule property and also did not filed his written
statement in O.S.No.73/1995 due to the arrogance
nature, careless of the property matter, not assisted
to the advocate who has appeared on behalf of the
plaintiff's husband. Therefore that the Hon'ble court
has accepted the recorders which are produce by the
plaintiff and decreed the suit as sought by the
plaintiff."
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
12. On examining paragraph No.4 of the plaint, it
can be gathered that the plaintiff has a grievance against
her husband, who failed to contest the earlier suit. In the
absence of a foundation and specific pleadings in regard to
the fraudulent title documents of defendants, the Trial
Court has rightly not framed any issues. If defendants
father was declared to be the absolute owner in the
previous round of litigation and the said decree has
attained finality in view of the dismissal of the second
appeal in RSA.No.117/2003, the present suit is clearly hit
by the doctrine of res judicata and the provisions of
Section 11 are clearly attracted, and therefore, the
plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.
13. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
embodies the principle of res judicata, according to this
provision, if the subject-matter that was previously
adjudicated upon becomes an incidental matter in
subsequent legal proceedings, the earlier decision will be
binding and prevent the parties from raising contrary
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
arguments or pleadings. If a matter has been conclusively
determined in a prior case, it cannot be re-litigated in
subsequent suits between the same parties. The doctrine
of res judicata is procedural in nature, distinguishing it
from substantive law. It aims to promote finality and
certainty in legal disputes, preventing endless litigation on
the same issues. Res judicata acts as a safeguard against
the abuse of legal processes and ensures the stability of
judicial decisions. The application of res judicata involves a
combination of legal and factual considerations. The bar
imposed by res judicata not only extends to the specific
decision but also encompasses all facts and circumstances
that were essential in arriving at that decision. This
includes all necessary steps taken in the earlier case to
establish the foundation for the judgment. This rule is
grounded in the principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
14. In the previous round of litigation, the
defendants' father is declared to be the absolute owner in
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
O.S.No.73/1995. The plaintiff is quite aware of the
judgment rendered in O.S.No.73/1995. It is also borne
out from the records that plaintiff is not asserting
independent title, but is tracing her title through her
husband. Therefore, she has no locus as there is no
independent right.
15. The significance of these findings rendered in
earlier suit will not only impact upon the litigants involved
in the antecedent litigation but extends its authoritative
reach to encompass their successors-in- interest. The
solemnity and gravity of a Court's pronouncement imbue it
with a character of irrefutable evidentiary value, rendering
it binding upon the parties and their progeny in
subsequent legal contests. The Courts, as custodians of
justice, are entrusted with the duty to safeguard the
sanctity of prior adjudications, fostering a legal landscape
characterized by coherence and consistency. This
obligation serves not merely as a legal formality but as an
indispensable mechanism to fortify the edifice of justice,
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
wherein the echoes of past pronouncements resonate with
authoritative import, guiding the trajectory of legal
deliberations.
16. Be that as it may. Both the Courts have
concurrently held that the present suit is also liable to be
dismissed on the ground of limitation. If the plaintiff was
aware of previous proceedings and the same was
successfully elicited in a cross-examination in a suit filed in
2013, even otherwise barred by limitation. The judgment
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in
the case of R.Uniikrishnan and Another vs.
V.K.Mahanudevan and others reported in (2014) 4
SCC 434 is not applicable to present case on hand.
Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise
for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of
merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
In the light of the findings recorded by this Court on
merits, though I have given my anxious consideration to
the documents relied on by the appellant-plaintiff, these
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:46318
additional documents cannot be looked into. This is Court
is also satisfied that these documents which are now
sought to be produced by way of additional document
have no relevancy. These documents are also not
required to be looked into to do substantial justice.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2023 is rejected.
The Registry shall forthwith return all the original
documents after securing photo copies of the same.
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hdk
