Karnataka High Court
Chakor vs Devidas Datta Borkar Since Decd By Lr on 19 June, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
RSA No. 919 of 2006
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.919 OF 2006 (POS)
BETWEEN:
1. CHAKOR S/O. GANAPATI BORKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SRI. DATTATRAYA NETREKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
(BOTH ARE R/O. PLOT NO 31,
SCHEME - 13, DOORDARSHAN NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.)
3. SMT. PRABHA
W/O. SRI. DINESH KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O: BOMBAY.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN C. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, DEVIDAS DATTA BORKAR SINCE
Dharwad
DECEASED BY L.R.
1. UDAY S/O. DEVIDAS BORKAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
COBBLERS BY OCCUPATION,
R/O: KODIBAG, KARWAR.
2. SRIKANT DATTA BORKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.
2A. SMT. PADMA @ SARASWATI
W/O. SRIKANT BORKAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
RSA No. 919 of 2006
HC-KAR
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KODIBAG,
KARWAR (UTTAR KANNADA),
PIN: 581 303.
3. SHAMA DATTA BORKAR,
MAJOR, PRIVATE SERVICE,
ROOM NO.8, THAKUR BHAI CHAWL
SUBHASH LANE,
SHANTILAL MODI ROAD,
KANDE VALI WEST, BOMBAY - 67.
4. GOPICHAND DATTA BORKAR,
MAJOR, R/O: ARMY MILK COLONY,
NEW HILL, QUARTERS, ROOM NO.24,
GOREGAON, EAST BOMBAY - 65.
5. PRABHAKAR DATTA BORKAR,
MAJOR, WORKING IN KEB OFFICE,
KUMTA.
6. RUKMINI DATA BORKAR,
MAJOR, HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VINAYAK BALGI'S HOUSE,
BASTIPETHE, KUMTA.
7. PREMA SHIVA NETALKAR,
MAJOR, SHRADHANAND GALLI,
SIRSI.
8. (LAXMIBAI YESHWANT BORKAR,
MAJOR, C/O: SHIVU KERIYA NETREKAR,
SHRADHANAND GALLI, SIRSI)
(DEAD BY LR RESPONDENT NO.8
AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED 10.1.2005.
9. MANGALA
W/O. ANANT NOGU NETREKAR,
R/O: GOLIPAIR, NEW TOTGAR SOCIETY
ROAD SIRSI.
10. ASHA W/O. MOHAN PANCHAMAHALKAR,
HUBLI ROAD, SIRSI, U. K.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
RSA No. 919 of 2006
HC-KAR
11. PRAMILA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
D/O. DATTA JOGLEKAR,
OPPOSITE PETROL PUMP,
BAPUJI NAGAR SIRSI.
12. SMT. ANNAPURNA
W/O. MANOHAR BORKAR,
AGED 37 YEARS,
BAPUJI NAGAR, SIRSI.
13. TUKARAM DULBA BORKAR,
MAJOR, SERVICE, TALWAR CAMP,
T/12, ROOM NO.20, KOLABA,
BOMBAY - 5.
14. SMT. LEELABAI EKU @ VENKU SIRSIKAR,
MAJOR, CALLED BY NAME KUSUMAV
V. KANDE, MAJULA SOCIETY,
SHRI. G. GUPTA ROAD,
DOMBIVALI WEST, THANA, BOMBAY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
APPEAL AGAIST R2 IS ABATED; R2(A) IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 AND R8 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. PADMAVATHI S. SAVANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE
R.A.NO.52/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT - II, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 05.12.2005 PASSED IN THE SAID CASE AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
10.10.2000 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVISION), KARWAR,
IN THE SUIT O.S.NO.77/1989 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
RSA No. 919 of 2006
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.77/1989 are before this
Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
05.12.2005 passed in Regular Appeal No.52/2004 on the
file of District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar (for short "the First Appellate Court") by which the
First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and decree
dated 10.10.2000 passed in O.S.No.77/1989 on the file of
Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Karwar (for short "the trial
Court").
2. Though the above suit has been filed by the
plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of possession
of the suit property and for mesne profits, based on the
allegation that defendant No.1 and his brother defendant
No.2, broke open the lock of the suit property and
demanded share in the same, a little back ground of this
case is required to be narrated. One Dulba Nilu Chamgar,
also known as Borker had four sons viz., 1) Yeshwant, 2)
Datta, 3) Ganapati, 4) Tukarama and a daughter Leela.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
Ganapati is the plaintiff, while the legal representatives of
Yeshwant, Datta and Tukaram are the defendants in the
present suit and the daughter Leela is the defendant
No.14.
3. The property, which is the subject matter of the
suit, namely Sy.No.24-B/3 measuring 0-5-0 guntas and
Sy.No.24/A measuring 0-2-6 guntas, with a house bearing
Karwar Municipal House No.1922 (hereinafter called as
'suit property') admittedly belonged to Dulba Nilu Chamgar
@ Borker. That upon the demise of Dulba Nilu Chamgar @
Borker, the property was managed and looked after by his
eldest son Yeshwant. It appears Ganapati the plaintiff
herein had lent a sum of Rs.1,300/- to Yeshwant,
purportedly for the welfare of the joint family upon an
agreement that the said amount would be returned to
Ganapati within a period of five years. Seeking recovery of
the said amount, Ganapati the plaintiff herein had filed a
suit in O.S.No.103/1973 against his other two brothers
viz., Datta and Tukarama, as Yeshwant had passed away
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
by that time. The said suit was dismissed as premature by
the Judgement and decree dated 10.10.1976.
4. Being aggrieved, Ganapati preferred a Regular
Appeal in R.A.No.74/1976. On 13.09.1977, a compromise
was arrived between Ganapati and his other two brothers,
Datta and Tukarama. In terms of which, while
acknowledging the loan lent by Ganapati, the said Datta
and Tukaram purportedly agreed to relinquish their share
in the suit property in his favour. Subsequently, defendant
No.1 herein Devidas son of Datta filed a suit in
O.S.No.57/1982 seeking partition of the suit property. The
said suit was dismissed by the Judgement and decree
dated 14.07.1988. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 filed
R.A.No.56/1988, while daughter of Yeshwant filed
R.A.No.59/1988. However, both appeals were dismissed
as withdrawn.
5. Things stood thus, the present suit has been
filed by Ganapati, alleging that he had let out a room in
favour of defendant No.1-Devidas to look after the suit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
property. However, defendant No.1 with the aid of his
other brothers allegedly broke open the lock and door of
the suit property and occupied the entire premises. This
gave rise to the cause of action for filing the present suit
seeking for possession and mesne profit.
6. Written statements have been filed by
defendant Nos.1 and 2, denying the plaint averments and
challenging the very maintainability of the suit. It is
contended that the plaintiff does not have any legal
possession or ownership of the suit property and the title
to the property has never been transferred to the plaintiff
under the law. As such, the plaintiff cannot claim any
right, title and interest or possession over the suit
property. It is further contended that the suit property was
standing in the name of propositus Dulba and only
recently the plaintiff had obtained mutation of his name
without having title over the suit property. The description
of the property provided in the plaint is also denied. It is
contended that defendant No.1 was born in the house
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
described in the suit property and has been leaving therein
ever since, along with his family consisting of his son, wife
and daughter. The defendant's father Datta, passed away
in the very same house where he had lived since his birth.
7. The suit property, being ancestral house, has
been inherited by the defendants in their own right upon
the demise of their grandfather and father, respectively.
The allegation of defendant No.1 was permitted to reside
in a portion of the house and subsequently broke open the
door of the house and illegally occupied the same is
denied. The mutation entries, which the plaintiff relies
upon to claim his title to the suit property are also denied.
The filing of the suit in O.S.No.57/1982 as well as the
regular appeal in R.A.No.56/1988 has been admitted. It is
stated that the regular appeal was withdrawn upon the
assurance made by the plaintiff not to disturb the
possession and enjoyment of the suit property of
defendant. It is also contended that the compromise that
was entered between the parties in R.A.No.74/1976 did
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
not include the house in question, as it was only in respect
of land referred to therein. As such, the plaintiff cannot
claim any title over the said house. Further, the said
compromise also did not create any right, title or interest
in respect of land mentioned therein inasmuch as Datta
and Tukarama had only agreed to effect or to take
necessary act to enter the name of the plaintiff in future.
As such, no right, title or interest was created in favour of
the plaintiff pursuant to the said document. Hence, sought
for dismissal of the suit.
8. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement
denying the averments made in the plaint and also
denying the averments that the suit in O.S.No.57/1982
was dismissed holding the suit property not to be the joint
family property. It is contended that the judgment and
decree in RA No.74/1976 was not binding on defendant
No.2 and the principle of res-judicata or the estoppel or
any other bar was not applicable to the defendant No.2.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial
Court framed the following issues and additional issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are
trespassers and are in unlawful possession of the
suit properties since 1982?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Judgment and
Decree Court, Karwar acts as resjudicata against
the defendants to claim any right over the suit
properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that by virtue of
Judgment and Decree in R.A.74/1976, defendants
are estopped from contending that the suit
properties are Joint Family properties?
4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that he has
perfected his title over the suit house by way of
adverse possession?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitle for
monthly mesne profits from the defendants for
their unlawful enjoyment of the suit properties
and unjust enrichment the reform?
6. If so, at what rate?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are
liable to evicted from the suit properties and
vacant possession is to be handed over to him?
8. To what reliefs the parties are entitled for?
9. What order and decree?
Additional Issues
1. Whether the defendant 1 proves that the
properties involved in the suit are worth more
than Rs.50,000-00 and hence, this court has no
pecuniary - jurisdiction to try the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner
of the suit land and suit house, bearing Karwar
Muncipal House No.1922?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
3. Whether defendant 1 proves that he has got
possessory title and legal right over the suit
lands, and suit house as alleged?
4. Whether the defendant 1 proves that suit is
barred by law of limitation?
5. Whether the defendant 1 proves that he has
perfected his title over the suit lands and the suit
house by way of adverse possession, as pleaded
in para 8 of his W.S.alternative?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves the cause of action as
alleged?
7. Whether Defendant No.1 proves that as plaintiff
has no legal possession and absolute title over
the suit property, the suit is not maintainable?"
10. Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and another
witness as PW.2 and exhibited 26 documents marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. Defendant No.1 examined himself as
DW.1 and another witness as DW.2 and exhibited 6
documents marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D6. The Trial Court on
appreciation of the evidence and contention of the parties,
answered issues Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and additional issue
Nos.2 and 6 in the affirmative and additional issue Nos.1,
3, 4 and 7 in the negative and decreed the suit directing
the defendants to handover the possession of the suit
property including the vacant possession of the house with
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
a direction for a separate enquiry for mesne profit under
Order 20 Rule 12.
11. Being aggrieved, defendants No.1 and 2 filed
the Regular Appeal in R.A.No.52/2004. Considering the
grounds urged, the First Appellate Court framed the
following points for consideration:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit
property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants
are in unauthorised possession of the suit property?
3. Are the Judgment and Decree in R.A.No.74/76 on
the file the Civil Judge, Karwar acts are resjudicata
against the defendants.
4. Are the defendants estopped from contending
that the suit properties are the joint family properties
in view of the Judgment and Decree in R.A.No.74/76?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled for possession of the suit
property?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled for mesne profits? If so
how?
7. Whether the defendant proves that the valuation
of the suit property is not correct and the Court has no
pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same?
8. Is interference to the findings of the trial Court
necessary?
9. Whether the Applicants was prevented from
sufficient cause from producing the documents now
sought to be produced are the documents not within
his reach despite due diligence?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
10. Is the Applicant entitled for an order to deposit
the money in I.A.No.4 with interest?
11. What orders?"
12. On re-appreciation of evidence, the First
Appellate Court answered point Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9
and 10 in the negative and point No.8 in the affirmative.
Consequently, allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court, as
against which the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff
since deceased by his legal representatives.
13. This Court by order dated 26.08.2010 admitted
the appeal to consider the following substantial questions
of law:
"Substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the lower Appellate Court has committed
an error while reversing the judgment of the trial Court
when the trial Court had appreciated the very same
evidence available on record and had come to the
conclusion that the suit is to be decreed?
2. Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in
law in coming to its conclusion that the principle of res
judicata would not apply in the present facts of the
case?"
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
14. Learned counsel for the appellants taking this
Court extensively through the reasoning and conclusion
arrived at by the First Appellate Court submitted that
admittedly the compromise had been entered into
between Datta the father of defendants No.1 to 6 and
Tukaram - defendant No.13 which has attained finality as
no one has questioned or challenged the same on any
count whatsoever. He submits that based on the said
compromise name of the plaintiff was mutated in the
revenue records as per ME No.6230 of Kodibag village.
That subsequent suit filed by defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.57/1982 having been dismissed holding the suit
property not being the joint family property and the
appeals filed in R.A.No.56/1988 and R.A.No.59/1988
having been withdrawn, it was not open for the defendants
to contend to the contrary. That the Trial Court has
appreciated these aspects of the matter and held that the
plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and
that the judgement and decree passed in R.A.No.74/1976
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
acted as res-judicata giving finality to the claims of the
parties which could not be re-agitated.
15. He further submits, the First Appellate Court on
the contrary went into unnecessary details to ascertain the
applicability of the principle of res-judicata ignoring the
fact that the very compromise decree was put to question
in subsequent suit in O.S.No.57/1982 and the same
having been held in favour of the plaintiff, the First
Appellate Court ought to have held the plaintiff to be the
absolute owner of the suit property and dismissed the
appeal. Hence, he submits the First Appellate Court erred
in not appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and
in holding that the principle of res-judicata would not
apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
16. He relies upon the judgement of the Apex Court
in the case of Shankar Sitaram Sontakke and Another
vs. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke and Others reported
in AIR 1954 SC 352 to support his contention that a
consent decree is binding upon the parties thereto and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
since there is no allegation of fraud and misrepresentation
by any of the parties, the decree passed thereon had
binding force of res-judicata and the defendants were
estopped from re-agitating the issue. Hence, seeks for
allowing of the appeal by answering the substantial
questions of law accordingly.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
defendants at the outset referring to the very compromise
decree that was passed in R.A.No.74/1976, submits that
the compromise decree did not create any right, title and
interest in the plaintiff as sought to be made out. He
submits that the very reading of the terms of the
compromise also indicate that the said Dutta, Tukaram,
and Ganapati had apparently mutually agreed the mode of
repayment of the loan amount and the compromise was
only in furtherance of the said understanding which they
had arrived at. All that Datta and Tukaram had agreed
under the compromise was only to take necessary steps
and action in making over the subject property in the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
name of the plaintiff. He submits no further action was
taken by the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the
compromise.
18. Referring to the reasoning assigned by the First
Appellate Court while answering point Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 at
paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 learned counsel pointed out
that the compromise was merely a contract that had been
entered into between the parties to the said compromise
and the same cannot be construed to have created any
right in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, he submits in the
absence of plaintiff prima facie establishing his title over
the suit property, cannot claim possession.
19. He submits in that view of the matter and in the
absence of any finality having been arrived on the said
compromise, the question of applicability of principles of
res-judicata would not arise. He submits these aspects of
the matter have never been subject matter of any of the
earlier suits therefore the principles of res-judicata would
not apply as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
Court. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal answering
the substantial question of law in the affirmative.
20. Heard. Perused the records.
21. The facts having been narrated above do not
require any reiteration. The only basis on which the
plaintiff has filed the present suit is the compromise dated
13.09.1977 which was entered into between the plaintiff
and his two brothers Datta and Tukaram who are the
fathers of defendants No.1 to 6 and 13 respectively. Terms
of the said compromise are extracted hereunder for
immediate perusal:
"¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ UÀt¥Àw EªÀjAzÀ PÉÊUÀqÀ
gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 1300-00 (ºÀ¢ªÀÄÆgÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¤d«gÀĪÀÅzÁV M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ zÁªÁzÀAvÉ
¤PÁ¯É DUÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄä AiÀiÁªÀ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ.
EzÀ®èzÉà ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÉÆä¼ÀUÉ ¸À¢æ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀÄPÁÛ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀÄvÀÄð ºÀt vÀÄA§®Ä
±ÀPÀå«®èzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Á®zÀ MqÀA§rPÉAiÀÄAvÉ vÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À C¹ÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
f.r.¨ÉÆgÀPÀgÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è PÀgÁjUÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
CAzÀgÉ:-
1. PÁgÀªÁgÀ PÉÆÃr¨ÁUÀ ¸À.£ÀA.: PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ 24J£ïJ 0-2-6
0-75 £À.¥ÉÊ.
2. PÁgÀªÁgÀ PÉÆÃr¨ÁUÀ 24©: 0-5-0 0-67 £À.¥ÉÊ. »¸Áì-3
CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä F ªÀiÁ®PÀ rQæAiÀÄ DqÀðgÀ
ªÀiÁqÀ®ànÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
22. A bare perusal of the aforesaid terms of the
compromise would indicate that the said three brothers
had confirmed and acknowledged payment and receipt of
Rs.1,300/- and they not being able to repay the same had
mutually agreed and had arrived at an arrangement in
terms of which Datta and Tukaram had undertaken to
makeover/convey their shares in the property in favour of
plaintiff - Ganapati. Nothing is brought on record as rightly
taken note of by the First Appellate Court as to any further
steps having been taken by the Ganapati - plaintiff in
furtherance to the said compromise decree in obtaining
share, right, title and interest of said Datta and Tukaram
conveyed in his favour in a manner known to law.
23. Terms of the said compromise have remained
as an agreement and nothing more. In other words, the
contract being executory in nature, it has neither created
any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff, nor
extinguished any right, title and interest of the said Datta
and Tukaram, in the suit property.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
24. Based on the said compromise the plaintiff has
obtained the mutation entry vide ME No.6230 of Kodibag
village which is now sought to be relied upon as title to the
property. Needless to state that the entry in the revenue
records cannot be equated to a title to the property.
Assuming the entries were made the same carry
rebuttable presumption which in the instant case have
been proved to the contrary.
25. The claim of the plaintiff being in settled
possession also cannot be countenanced inasmuch as
defendant No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.57/1982 barely
within 5 years from the date of the compromise. Further it
is the case of the plaintiff himself that he had purportedly
authorised/permitted defendant No.1 to occupy portion of
the suit property as a caretaker and that he had allegedly
broke open the property and occupied it. Nothing has been
brought on record to discredit the claim of defendant being
in possession of the suit property ever since the date of his
birth. The First Appellate Court has also found the date of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
alleged breaking open of the suit property by the
defendants being inconsistent and contrary to the facts of
the case.
26. Plaintiff thus has neither established his title nor
his possession over the suit property. As such a suit for
possession and mesne profit cannot be maintained. The
aforesaid two aspects of the matter being the elementary
requirement for a suit for possession, further probe into
the matter is unnecessary.
27. Though the First Appellate Court has adverted
into detail with regard to the question of applicability of
principles of res-judicata to the facts of the instant case to
hold that the same were not applicable, no error or
illegality can be found with the reasoning and conclusion
arrived at by the First Appellate court on the said aspect of
the matter.
28. The reliance placed by counsel for the
appellants on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of
Shankar Sitaram Sontakke supra is inapplicable to the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
instant case. In that, as noted above the compromise that
was entered into between Datta and Tukaram on the one
hand and Ganapati on the other in R.A.No.74/1976 did not
create any absolute right, title and interest in favour of
plaintiff- Ganapati. As such, the said compromise cannot
be read and interpreted to have created any binding force
on the legal representatives of the executants estopping
them from questioning the right, title and interest of the
plaintiff over the suit property. Therefore, reliance so
placed on the aforesaid judgment is therefore of no avail.
29. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis this
Court do not find any ground to interfere with the
judgement in decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court
reversing the finding and conclusion arrived by the Trial
Court cannot be found fault with. Substantial questions of
law are answered accordingly.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7812
HC-KAR
30. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
RHR upto para 7
SH from para 8 to end
