Karnataka High Court
Narana Poojary vs Smt Gulabi on 27 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1384 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
NARANA POOJARY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SMT. LEELA
W/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
2. YADAVA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally signed by R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
PANKAJA S
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
KARNATAKA
3. KESHAVA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 575 018.
4. HARISHA
S/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
5. SMT. LATHA
D/O ALTE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
6. SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O LATE NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
7. M. SWATHY
GRANDAUGHTER OF NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
8. R. NAVEENA
GRANDSON OF NARNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
...APPELLANTS
AND:
1. SMT. GULABI
W/O ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHANAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
2. MADHAVA BANGERA
S/O ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
3. DAYANANDA
S/O LATE ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
4. RAJESH
S/O LATE ISHWARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT "BHAGYALAXMI NIVAS",
AMRITHNAGAR, KOTEKAR POST,
SOMESHWARA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK,
DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
5. RAMA POOJARY
S/O LATE THANKARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
5(a) SMT. MEENAKSHI,
W/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(b) SMT. PUSHPA
D/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGE : MAJOR
5(c) SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE:MAJOR
5(d) SMT. BHARATHI
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(e) SRI. VISHWANATH
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE:MAJOR
5(f) SRI. BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
5(g) SRI. GANESH
S/O LATE RAMA POOJARY
AGE: MAJOR
ALL ARE R/AT: NO.2/39/B, MUGULYA HOUSE
BELMA, BELMA(CT), MANGALURU
MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 018.
AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2024
DOOMAPPA POOJARY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
6. SMT. KUSUMA
D/O LATE DOOMAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
7. SMT. SUJATHA
D/O LATE DOOMA POOJARY
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
8. SHEKARA
S/O LATE DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
9. PAVITHRA
D/O DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
10. SUMA
D/O DOOMA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT MUGULYA HOUSE,
BELMA, MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 018.
11. SMT. LEELA
D/O THANKARA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT YEDODI, VORKADY ROAD,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT-671 121.
AMENDED CAUSE TITILE FILED ON 20.06.2024
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(LR'S OF DECEASED APPEELLANT NO.1)
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.11.2025
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R4, R5(A-G) & R11,
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH K ADVOCATE FOR R6-R10,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
RSA No. 1384 of 2019
HC-KAR
R1, R2, R3 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 42 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.06.2019 PASSED
IN R.A.NO. 10/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., MANGALURU D.K., DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD
25.11.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 753/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU D.K.,
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 25.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for cancellation of
preliminary decree in O.S.No.677/2001 and for
consequential decree of partition of the suit schedule
property by virtue of chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their father original
plaintiff namely Narna Poojary along with their grandfather
Thankara Poojary were the absolute owners of the suit
schedule property based on the chalageni chit dated
30.09.1957 obtained from their landlord by name
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
Narasimha Bhandary and as such, they both have equal
share in the suit schedule property. Ever since the date of
chalageni, they were in actual possession of the suit
schedule property. Things stood thus, defendant Nos.1 to
4 (the legal heirs of Ishwara Poojary, one of the brothers
of Narna Poojary) filed O.S.No.677/2001 for partition of
suit schedule property against Narna Poojary, wherein,
Narna Poojary, being rustic villager, did not file any
written statement and taking advantage of the same,
defendant No.6 - Doomappa Poojary (one of the brothers
of Narna Poojary) misrepresented the facts in
OS.No.677/2001. Based on the same, the defendants
summoned four chalageni chits subsequent to 30.09.1957
and purposefully, they omitted to summon the chalageni
chit dated 30.09.1957 which was executed in favour of
Narna Poojary and his father, although Doomappa Poojary
had knowledge of the same. As such, though the plaintiff
was entitled for half share in the suit schedule property
and his father's share i.e., Thankara Poojary's share ought
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
to have been divided into five equal shares among his five
children, the suit OS.No.677/2001 was decreed granting
1/5th share to the legal heirs of Thankara Poojary. Against
which, Narna Poojary preferred an appeal, which came to
be dismissed. Thereafter, FDP proceedings were initiated,
which was closed. Being aggrieved by the same, Narna
Poojary preferred an appeal. Since defendants colluding
with Doomappa Poojary had obtained preliminary decree
in OS.No.677/2001, left with no other alternative, plaintiff
- Narna Poojary preferred the present suit in
OS.No.753/2011.
4. The Trial Court, after framing the relevant issues, has
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the
plaintiff - Narna Poojary has failed to prove that he along
with his father Thankara Poojary were the absolute owners
of the suit schedule property and also failed to prove that
his brothers i.e., Rama Poojary and Doomappa Poojary
had played fraud on him in OS.No.677/2001.
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court, on re-
appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed the appeal
by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
on the ground of principles of res judicata.
6. I have heard Sri.Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for
the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned
counsel for respondents 4, 5 (a to g) and respondent
No.11, Sri Jayaprakash K., learned counsel for
respondents 6 to 10. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 though
served, remained unrepresented.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs is that the Trial Court and First
Appellate Court have grossly erred by holding that the suit
of the plaintiffs is barred by res judicata, when the subject
matter and the relief sought in O.S No.677/2001 is quite
different from the instant case. He further contended that
the Trial Court has also erred in holding that the partition
cannot be reopened once the partition is effected by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
Court in final decree proceedings. According to the learned
counsel, the Trial Court has erred in not relying on Ex.P20
- Chalageni Chit dated 30.09.1957 which clearly depicts
that the original plaintiff - Narna Poojary and his father
jointly obtained the suit schedule property on Chalageni,
as such, he is entitled for half share in the suit schedule
property and only the half share of his father - Thankara
Poojary had to be divided in 5 equal shares.
8. According to learned counsel, the plaintiff, who was
an illiterate person, had no worldly knowledge and reposed
confidence on his brother - Doomappa Poojary (defendant
No.3 in O.S.No.677/2001) and entrusted the work of
conducting the case. However, his brother had not
produced Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 in O.S
No.677/2001. In such circumstance, the same amounts to
fraud on the Court and the plaintiff.
9. He also contended that, in the cross-examination of
DW.1, Madhava Bangera - son of Ishwara Poojary, he
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
admitted that, either himself or any other parties have not
brought Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 to the
notice of the Court in O.S. No.677/2001. Further, it is also
admitted that, as per Ex.P20, half of the suit schedule
property devolves to the share of plaintiff - Narna Poojary.
This admission of DW.1 goes to the root of the plaintiffs'
case and the Trial Court has totally misread the same and
dismissed the suit on the ground of res-judicata.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that, Ex.P20 clearly reveals that the same was
executed on 30.09.1957 only for a period of one year.
Thereafter, the chalageni chit was executed only in favour
of Thankara Poojary i.e. the father of plaintiffs and
defendants. As such, it is clear that the plaintiff was not
continued as a joint tenant of the suit schedule property
after one year from 30.09.1957. Further, Ex.P20 was
executed in the name of plaintiff and his father on the
capacity of Kartha/Manager of joint family. As such,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
though the Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 was executed
in their favour in respect of suit schedule property, the
same would be liable to be partitioned. Accordingly, the
plaintiff, who was a party in O.S No.677/2001, had
admitted the statement of his brother Doomappa Poojary
and also consented for final decree proceedings by
accepting his share. In such circumstance, the suit is hit
by res-judicata and accordingly, the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit.
Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and
perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by
both the Courts.
12. As could be gathered from records, the suit schedule
property is the subject matter of O.S.No.677/2001, which
was preferred by the legal heirs of Ishwara Poojary for
partition against the plaintiff and the other children of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
Thankara Poojary. In the said suit, the original plaintiff has
not filed his written statement. Doomappa Poojary
contested the said suit. The said suit decreed and the final
decree was drawn in FDP.No.6/2007 and the respective
shares of plaintiff and defendants were allotted.
Thereafter, the original plaintiff instituted the instant suit
on the ground that, the plaintiff and his father - Thankara
Poojary had jointly obtained the suit schedule property for
chalageni from the landlord in the year 1957. As such, the
plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule
property and the remaining half share ought to have been
partitioned. However, due to illiteracy of the plaintiff, he
had not placed Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957
in O.S No.677/2001.
13. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, it is
clear that Ex.P20 - Chalageni chit dated 30.09.1957 was
issued in the name of the plaintiff and his father -
Thankara Poojary in respect of suit schedule property only
for one year i.e. from 30.09.1957 on the capacity of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49379
HC-KAR
Kartha/Manager of the joint family. As such, the suit
schedule property would be liable to be partitioned.
Moreover, after one year, the chalageni was continued
only in the name of Thankara Poojary. The plaintiff, being
a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.677/2001, has failed
to file written statement and contest the said suit and also
having accepted the decree in the said suit and having
accepted his share in FDP No.6/2007, now cannot take a
u-turn and claim right by relying on the 50 years old
document. The said aspect of the matter has rightly been
dealt by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and
have rightly applied the principles of res-judicata in the
instant suit and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Hence, I
find no question of law much less the substantial question
of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
