Karnataka High Court
Smt Nagarathnamma vs Smt Lakshmidevamma on 10 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
RSA No. 1001 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1001 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,
W/O SRI. M.D. ASHWATHAPPA,
D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 562 157.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
Location: HIGH W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
3. SRI. ASHWATHA REDDY,
D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. SRI. RAGHUNATHA REDDY,
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
RSA No. 1001 of 2025
HC-KAR
SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY (LATE),
S/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
5. SMT. ADILAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
6. SMT. SUNANDAMMA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/AT HUDUGURU VILLAGE,
D PALYA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
PIN CODE: 561 206.
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
D/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/AT ITAGALPURA,
RAJANUKUNTE-560 089,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
8. SRI. PRAKASH REDDY,
S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT SIDDINAHALLI VILLAGE,
D PALYA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
PIN CODE: 561 206.
9. SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY,
S/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 AND 9
ARE AGRICULTURISTS,
R/AT SIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
RSA No. 1001 of 2025
HC-KAR
D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 561 206.
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA (LATE),
D/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
10. SRI. SUBBA REDDY,
H/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE,
D PALYA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 561 206.
11. SMT. ROOPA,
W/O SRI BHASKAR REDDY,
D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE,
D PALYA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE: 561 206.
12. SMT. RADHA,
W/O SRI. SANATH KUMAR,
D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/AT D PALYA VILLAGE,
D PALYA HOBLI,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 561 206.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
RSA No. 1001 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2025
PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2017
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
GOWRIBIDANUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of
declaration and injunction based on the registered gift deed
dated 14.06.2017 was dismissed. The Trial Court while
dismissing the suit, particularly taking note of doctrine of res
judicata, in paragraph No.38 comes to the conclusion that in
former suit in O.S.No.191/2010 against the mother of the
plaintiff herein for the main relief of declaration and permanent
injunction, after its contest, the same was dismissed on
15.04.2015, wherein the Court held that Kenchamma was not
the owner of the present suit properties and the defendants
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
HC-KAR
herein preferred an appeal in R.A.No.123/2015 and the
plaintiff's mother Kenchamma also filed cross-objection in that
appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 14.11.2016 and the
cross-objection was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said
judgments and decrees, the defendants herein have challenged
the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
R.S.A.No.465/2017 and the same is pending for consideration.
However, the mother of the plaintiff had not challenged the
dismissal of the cross-objection and the same has attained its
finality. Hence, the Trial Court taking into note of the claim
made by the mother in the earlier suit and also the cross-
objection, comes to the conclusion that the present suit cannot
be entertained and the same suffers from res judicata, since
already finding was given by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court and hence dismissed the suit.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed
in R.A.No.40/2022 and the First Appellate Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record, re-assessed the same and formulated the point for
consideration whether the judgment and decree of the Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
HC-KAR
Court is illegal and calls for an interference. The First Appellate
Court while considering the matter on merits, particularly in
paragraph No.18 taken note of the plaintiff claims her right,
title and interest on the gift deed at Ex.P.4 dated 14.06.2017
executed by her mother Kenchamma, who claims her right, title
through the revenue documents standing in the name of
Nanjundappa S/o Avalappa. The First Appellate Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record by both the sides, in paragraph No.23 comes to the
conclusion that the defendants have filed the suit in
O.S.No.191/2010 in respect of the suit properties, which came
to be dismissed on 15.04.2015 and they filed an appeal in
R.A.No.123/2015, which also came to be dismissed. Further
observation is made that it is an undisputed fact that the
mother of the plaintiff Kenchamma had also filed the cross-
objection, which also came to be dismissed in the said appeal.
In paragraph No.26, an observation is made that the mother of
the plaintiff Kenchamma raised her title over the suit properties
in the former suit, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court
and in the appeal also, her claim for title was rejected. The
daughter of Kenchamm, the plaintiff, now comes up with the
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
HC-KAR
plea that she is the absolute owner and she acquired the title
over the suit property through the registered gift deed dated
14.06.2017 executed by Kenchamma/mother of the plaintiff.
Having taken note of the said findings, in paragraph No.28
discussed that there is no specific issue raised with regard to
res judicata in this case before the learned Senior Civil Judge.
However, taking into note of the material on record, pleadings
of the parties, both the parties aware of the previous title suit
with regard to the suit properties and pleaded about the
previous litigation in respect of the same suit property. The
parties led the evidence on the previous litigation also and both
the parties aware of their positions and led the evidence on the
said previous litigation. Having taken note of the same, even in
the absence of any issue of res judicata, the same will not
affect the rights of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would
vehemently contend that the Trial Court has not framed any
issue with regard to res judicata is concerned. The learned
counsel would contend that in the absence of res judicata, the
Trial Court ought not to have considered the same.
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
HC-KAR
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
the fact is that when the parties pleaded before the Court, the
issues will be framed based on the pleadings of the parties.
Even the defendants have also not raised the objection with
regard to res judicata is concerned. However, during the
course of trial, it is emerged that earlier proceedings was there
before the Court in respect of the same parties and both of
them have claimed the right in respect of the very same suit,
the rights even including the plaintiff's mother. The plaintiff's
mother was unsuccessful in the suit as well as in the appeal
and when the judgment of earlier suit has attained finality in
dismissing the claim of the plaintiff, subsequently gift deed was
executed and based on the subsequent gift deed, claiming the
ownership. When the mother was unsuccessful, the question of
executing gift deed in favour of the daughter and filing a suit
through the daughter claiming the title does not arise. Hence, I
do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court and both the Courts have taken note
of the material available on record and also the claim made by
the plaintiff's mother earlier and she was unsuccessful and
subsequently afterthought created a gift deed in favour of the
NC: 2025:KHC:40040
HC-KAR
daughter and got filed the suit through the daughter seeking
the relief of declaration and hence the appellant/plaintiff has
not made out any case to admit the second appeal and frame
any substantial question of law.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
