Karnataka High Court
Ramgouda S/O Satteppa Somanatti vs Satteeppa Parappa Somanatti on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
RFA No. 100122 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100122 OF 2019 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMGOUDA
S/O. SATTEPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BALOBAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
2. SMT. ADIVEWWA @ SAVITA
W/O. SHRISHAIL TERANI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SHIRAGAON, TAL: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591309.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2024.03.13
12:02:38 +0530
1. SATTEEPPA PARAPPA SOMANATTI
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG,
SOMANATTI TOTA, TAL: GOKAK-591218.
2. BASAWWA CALLING HERSELF AS
W/O. SATTEPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, SOMANATTI TOTA,
TAL: GOKAK-591218.
3. SMT. SUREKHA W/O. SIDDAGOUDA
@ SIDDAPPA PATIL @ CHAVAHOLDAR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
RFA No. 100122 of 2019
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KADAKBHAVI, TAL: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
4. IRAPPA CALLING HERSELF AS
S/O. SATTEPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HUNASHYAL PG, SOMANATTI TOTA,
TAL: GOPKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
5. DEEPA CALLING HERSELF AS
D/O. SATTEPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNASHYAL PG, SOMANATTI TOTA,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
6. HANAMANT @ SHIVANAND
CALLING HIMSELF AS
S/O. SATTEPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNASHYAL PG, SOMANATTI TOTA,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
7. BASALINGAPPA PARAPPA SOMANATTI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
8. SMT. NIMBEWWA CALLING HERSELF AS
W/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
9. YASHODHA CALLING HERSELF AS
D/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
10. BASAVARAJ CALLING HIMSELF AS
S/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
RFA No. 100122 of 2019
11. SEEMA CALLING HERSELF AS
D/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
12. PARAPPA CALLING HIMSELF AS
D/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
(RESPONDENT NO.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS
R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.8)
13. SMT. BASAWWA
W/O. BASALINGAPPA SOMANATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BALOBAL, TAL: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.
14. IRAPPA BASAPPA SOMANATTI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HUNSHYAL PG, SOMANATTI TOTA,
TAL: GOKAK-591218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R1 TO R10;
NOTICE TO R13 AND R14;
R11 AND R12 ARE MINOR REP. BY R8)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.425/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, ALLOWING I.A. 3 FILED
BY DEFENDANT NO.7 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (b) OF CPC
AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECTING THE PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
E.S.INDIRESH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
RFA No. 100122 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This First Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3
in O.S.No.425/2014, challenging the order dated 29.10.2018
on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), allowing the application
filed by the defendant No.7 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and
as such, rejected the plaint.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, one Sateppa was
original propositus and he had two children namely Parappa
and Basappa. It is further stated in the plaint that the first son-
Parappa had two sons i.e. Sateppa (defendant No.1) and
Basalingappa (defendant No.7). Satteppa-defendant No.1 had
two wives namely Laxmawwa and Basawwa. Satteppa had two
children through Laxmawwa namely Ramagouda (plaintiff No.2)
and Adivewwa @ Savita (plaintiff No.3). Satteppa had four
children through Basavva (second wife) namely Surekha
(defendant No.3), Irappa (defendant No.4), Deepa (defendant
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
No.5) and Hanumant @ Shivanand (defendant No.6). It is the
case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had filed
O.S.No.90/2000 against the defendant and the said suit was
ended with compromise between the parties. It is the grievance
of the parties that, the plaintiff No.3 in O.S.No.425/2014 was
minor during the execution of compromise petition and she was
represented by first plaintiff in the present suit as a natural
guardian and the interest of the minor was not taken care of in
the said suit i.e. O.S.No.90/2000 and accordingly, the plaintiffs
have filed O.S.No.425/2014 on the file of the trial Court,
seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of
the suit schedule properties.
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed written statement. The defendant No.7
has filed I.A.No.3 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) of CPC,
seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that, already a
compromise decree has been passed in O.S.No.90/2000 in
respect of the suit schedule properties and therefore, it is
contended that, the plaintiffs cannot urge the same grounds in
the subsequent suit, as there is no cause of action, and
accordingly, defendant No.7 sought for rejection of the plaint.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
The said application filed by the defendant No.7 was contested
by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, after considering the material
on record, by its order dated 29.10.2018 allowed I.A.No.3 filed
by the defendant No.7, consequently rejected the plaint filed by
the plaintiffs. Feelings aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs
have presented this Regular First Appeal.
5. We have heard Sri. Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Shriharsh A.
Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1
to 10.
6. Sri. Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants contended that, the finding recorded by the
trial Court rejecting the plaint is on erroneous assumption on
the ground that, the plaintiff No.3 was a party in
O.S.No.90/2000 and the said finding recorded by the trial Court
requires interference as the plaintiff No.3 was minor and her
interest was not protected at the time of drawing up of
compromise decree in O.S.No.90/2000 and as such, the
compromise decree in O.S.No.90/2000 is void in respect of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
plaintiff No.3 is concerned and accordingly, he sought for
interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 10 sought to justify
the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
8. Having taken note of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully
examined the original records.
9. Looking into the grounds urged in the Memorandum
of Appeal, the points for consideration in the present appeal is
as under:
(i) Whether order dated 29.10.2018 in
O.S.No.425/2014 is justifiable in nature?
(ii) Whether the compromise decree in O.S.No.90/2000
is binding on plaintiff No.3?
(iii) What order?
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that, O.S.No.90/2000
was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate
possession in respect of the suit schedule properties and the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
said suit was ended with compromise on 04.04.2001 in
O.S.No.90/2000. Undisputably, the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.425/2014 were plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2000; defendant
No.1 in O.S.No.425/2014 was defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.90/2000. It is also not in dispute that, plaintiff No.3 was
minor, however, she was represented through her natural
guardian-plaintiff No.1. In that view of the matter, having
taken note of the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of
the opinion that, though it is well settled principle in law that
the trial Court shall consider the averments made in the plaint
alone while considering the application filed under Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC and not guided by the averments made in the
written statement, however, if the applicant files an application
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and substantiate with the
relevant document that, there is no cause of action to file the
second suit on the same cause of action, if the suit is disposed
of on an earlier occasion, at that juncture, the trial Court is
empowered to look into the averments made in the plaint as
well as the averments made in the written statement and would
arrive at a conclusion that, whether the suit is maintainable or
not on the ground of want of cause of action. In that view of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4864-DB
the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by
the trial Court at paragraph No.15 and 20 of the impugned
order, the appellants have not made out a case for interference
in the present appeal and the points for determination referred
to above favours the defendant and as such, appeal fails.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
