[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. S. Janakiraman vs Sri. M. Nagaraja on 16 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.943 OF 2022 (LR)
C/W.
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.833 OF 2022
IN WA NO.943/2022:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. B. S. JANAKIRAMAN
S/O. LATE SRINIVASA IYENGAR,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
(a) SMT. LEELAMANI
W/O. LATE B. S. JANAKIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2 . SMT. SAVITHA
D/O. LATE B. S. JANAKIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3 . SMT. DEEPASHREE
D/O. LATE B. S. JANAKIRAM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL RESIDING AT NO.22,
RHS QUARTERS,
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. SAGAR G. NAHAR, ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. SRI. M. NAGARAJA
S/O. LATE MUNINANJAPPA @ NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
NO.2, 100 FEET RING ROAD,
BTM ROAD,
1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 029.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
LAND TRIBUNAL,
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL-562 106,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SRI. B. S. SATHYANANDAN
S/O. LATE SRINIVASA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 EYARS,
NO.534, 32ND CROSS,
IV BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 011.
4. SRI. B. S. SESHADRIVASAN
S/O. LATE SRINIVASA IYENGAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
QUARTER NO. 68, UPSTAIRS,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
5. SRI. B. S. SRIDHARA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
(A) SRI. PRASHANTH
S/O. LATE B. S. SRIDHARA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3
(B) SRI. SRIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS AT NO.136,
SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 086.
6. SMT. RAMAMANI. B
D/O. B.S. DWARKANATAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
QUARTER NO. 68, UPSTAIRS,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
7. SRI. RAMANATH. B
S/O. B. S. DWARKANATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
QUARTER NO. 68, UPSTAIRS,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
8. SMT. GODAMANI
W/O. T. A. MURALI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.62, 30TH CROSS,
BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
9. SRI. M. S. K. IYENGAR
S/O. SUDARSHANACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
LEELAVATHI EXTENSION,
MADDUR,
4
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
10 . SRI. A. C. SRINIVASARAJU
S/O. A. M. CHANDRASEKHARA RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.172/1,
SRINIVASA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 076.
11 . THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL-562 106,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KANTHARAJU H., SR. ADV. FOR
SRI RAVI H.K., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2 & R11;
SRI S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADV., FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT
ON I.A.No.2/2024;
R6, R8 & R10 ARE SERVED;
R3 TO R5 (a & b), R7 & R9 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD
SUFFICIENT V.C.O. DT.21.08.2024)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED IN W.P.
NO.27727/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
TO DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
IN CCC No.833/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI M. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA @
NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
5
NO.2, 100 FT. RING ROAD,
B.T.M. ROAD, 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI MITHUN G.A., ADV.)
AND:
1. VENKATACHALAM
SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL - 562 106.
...ACCUSED
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR PROFORMA R2 & A1)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPTS OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE
ACCUSED FOR SECURING THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN
PERSON WHO CAUSED BREACH AND VIOLATION OF THE
ORDER DATED 24.06.2022 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF
THE HIGH COURT IN W.P. NO.27727/2013 (LR) WITHOUT
COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER, WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.02.2026 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU
SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
6
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated
24.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.27727/2013 (LR) and the Contempt of Court Case
is filed alleging willful disobedience of the same Order.
2. We have heard Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Sagar G. Nahar,
learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Shri.
Kantharaju H. learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri
H.K. Ravi, learned advocate appearing for respondent
No.1, Shri. Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.2 and respondent
No.11, Shri. S.R. Kamalacharan learned counsel for
proposed respondent on I.A.No.2/2024 in
W.A.No.943/2022. We have heard Shri. Mithun G.A.
learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Shri. Kiran
Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for Proforma respondent No.2 and accused No.1.
3. The legal question which arises for consideration
in this appeal is whether respondent No.1 herein - Shri.
M.Nagaraja, who was a party to earlier rounds of litigation
and had specifically acquiesced to the question of tenancy
in respect of Sy.No.47 of Lakshmipura Village, Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, measuring 9 acres 9 guntas being
reconsidered on merits by the Land Tribunal could have
raised a contention that the appellants' claim for tenancy
stood rejected in the year 1979 and could not be re-
agitated.
4. The facts of the case are as follows:
Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath, brother of Shri. B.S.
Janakiraman - appellant No.1 herein, had filed Form No.7
in respect of Sy.No.47 of Lakshmipura Village, Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk measuring 9 acres 9 guntas claiming
occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal. The said claim
was rejected by the Land Tribunal by Order dated
19.09.1979 due to the continued absence of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath. The legal representatives of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath challenged the Order of the Land Tribunal
dated 19.09.1979 in W.Ps.No.18484-18490/1990. The Writ
Petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches
by an Order dated 24.10.1990. Another set of
W.Ps.No.25182/1991 and 25184/1991 came to be filed by
persons who claimed to be grantees challenging the Order
of the Land Tribunal dated 19.09.1979 insofar as it related
to the order rejecting the occupancy rights with regard to
Sy.No.52 of Lakshmipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal
Taluk. This Court by an Order dated 11.12.1997 passed in
W.P.No.25182/1991, set aside the Order of the Land
Tribunal dated 19.09.1979 in LRF A.T.C. 3317/75-76 and
LRF A.T.C. 3498/78-79 and remanded the matter to the
Land Tribunal.
The Land Tribunal passed on order dated 23.04.1999
granting occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.52. As far as
9 acres and 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.47 is considered, the
tenancy applications were rejected and the purchaser of
the land and his successor Shri. M.S.K. Iyengar were
accepted as land owners. It was also found that Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath cannot be considered as a tenant in respect
of 11 acres 9 gunats in Sy.No.52 and 9 acres and 9 guntas
in Sy.No.47 his Form No.7 application was rejected.
The legal representatives of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath
filed W.P.No.20505/1999, wherein this Court set aside the
Order of the Land Tribunal dated 23.04.1999, insofar as it
rejected the claim of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath over
Sy.No.47. This Court considered O.S.No.223/1967 filed by
Shri. Sudarshanachar and W.Ps.No.18484-18490/1990 and
held that the continued possession of the land as on
01.03.1974 by Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath would make his
possession as that of a "deemed tenant." It was held that
the Land Tribunal did not consider these factual aspects
while adjudicating the claim of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath.
Hence, this Court set aside the said order of the Land
Tribunal and remanded the matter for adjudication in
respect of Sy.No.47.
The Order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.20505/1999 was taken up in appeal before a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.988/2007. After
impleading the subsequent purchaser, Shri. M. Nagaraja -
respondent No.1 herein, the Court by Order dated
28.08.2008 dismissed W.A.No.988/2007, directing the
Land Tribunal to consider all the factual and legal aspects
of the matter while adjudicating the claim of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath.
The Land Tribunal passed an Order on 22.11.2010
granting occupancy rights in favour of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath in respect of 9 acres 9 guntas of Sy.No.47.
This Order was challenged by respondent No.1 herein in
W.P.No.39525/2010. The Court by Order dated 13.07.2012
set aside the Land Tribunal's Order dated 22.11.2010 and
remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal to re-consider the
case of the parties, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the
Land Tribunal under Order dated 20.03.2013 granted
occupancy rights in favour of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath's
legal representatives after complying with the provisions of
Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.27727/2013 whereby
this Court by Order dated 24.06.2022 quashed the Land
Tribunal's Order dated 30.03.2013 and directed to restore
the name of respondent No.1 herein, in the revenue
records. The appellants preferred a Review Petition
No.639/2022 seeking to review the orders passed in
W.P.No.27727/2013 which was dismissed by Order dated
06.09.2022. Aggrieved by the Order in
W.P.No.27727/2013, the appellants are in appeal before
this Court.
5. Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants contends that the learned
Single Judge held that the claim of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath
and his legal representatives, is not maintainable because
the Tribunal had rejected his claim by Order dated
19.09.1979. The same Order became final pursuant to the
dismissal of the writ petitions in W.Ps.No.18484-
18490/1990 by an Order dated 24.10.1990. However, in
the later rounds of litigation by order dated 20.09.2007 in
W.P.No.20505/1999, which was confirmed in
W.A.No.988/2007, by order dated 28.08.2008 and the
later Order dated 13.07.2012 in W.P.No.39525/2010, the
claim of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath and his legal
representatives for tenancy and occupancy rights over
lands in Sy.No.47, was categorically and comprehensively
reopened by this Court with the contesting respondent
herein on the party array. Once such reopening had
occurred, by competent orders of this Court which were
acquiesced to by the contesting respondent and had
become final, it was no longer open to the contesting
respondent to take a plea of res judicata before the
Tribunal or before this Court in the current writ petition.
6. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider that pursuant to the Order dated
11.12.1997 in W.P.No.25182/1991, the Court remanded
the matter to the Land Tribunal wherein the Land Tribunal
considered the claim over Sy.No.47. It is stated that no
objection for consideration of the said claim was raised by
the parties. Therefore, the parties have acquiesced for
reconsideration of the claim of legal representatives of
Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath over the land in Sy.No.47.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order
has erred in reopening an issue regarding maintainability of
the claim to which the parties had acquiesced.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants has relied on the following decisions:-
• Kurichiyan Chandu v. Kunjuraman Nambiar,
reported in 1989 SCC OnLine Ker 467.
• P.C.Ray and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India, reported in 1971 SCC OnLine Cal 88.
8. The learned Single Judge after consideration of
the contentions found that the claim for tenancy raised by
Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath in respect of Sy.No.47 stood
rejected in the year 1979 itself. The said order was
challenged by the legal representatives of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath, who are the petitioners in W.Ps.No.18484 to
18490/1990. The said writ petitions were also rejected on
the ground of delay and laches.
9. It is thereafter that W.P.No.20505/1999 was
filed in the year 1999 by the legal heirs of Shri. B.S.
Dwarakanath and Annexure - K Order was rendered on
29.01.2007. Respondent No.9 herein (Shri. M.S.K.Iyengar)
was respondent No.10 in the said Writ Petition. The plea of
tenancy taken up by Shri. B. S. Dwarakanath in respect of
Sy.No.47 of Lakshmipura Village was specifically raised
therein. The learned Single Judge found that in the
absence of plea of Shri. B. S. Dwarakanath that the sale in
favour of respondent No.10 was only nominal, the question
whether possession remained with Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath,
is to be considered. The order of the Land Tribunal was set
aside and the matter was remanded for adjudication in
respect of Sy.No.47 of Lakshmipura Village. It was
specifically stated that all questions are left open for
adjudication by the Land Tribunal. Further, it was also
recorded that respondent No.10 has sold portion of
Sy.No.47. The purchasers were permitted to be impleaded.
Thereafter, Writ Appeal No.988/2007 was filed by Shri.
M.S.K. Iyengar. Respondent No.1 herein was impleaded as
respondent No.10 in the said appeal. It is recorded in the
judgment passed by the Division Bench on 28.08.2008 in
Writ Appeal No.988/2007, that an application under Order
XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by
the appellant conceding the claim of respondent No.1 as
tenant in respect of the land in Sy.No.47 measuring 9
acres and 9 guntas. However, noticing that the appellant
had sold part of the land in favour of others, the said
application was rejected by Order dated 15.04.1998.
Thereafter, the purchasers were impleaded. Paragraphs
No.4 and 5 of the judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed in
W.A.No.988/2007 by the Division Bench, read as follows:-
"4. Sri.C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant submitted that, the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge, be allowed to
operate, by directing the Land Tribunal to notify the
purchasers of the land in Sy. No.47 of Laksmipura Village
and proceed for adjudication, by taking into consideration
the observations made by the learned Single Judge and to
dispose of the claim, in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for respondents No.9 and
10 i.e., the purchasers of the property in Sy. No.47 of
Laksmipura Village submitted that respondents 9 and 10
will appear before the Land Tribunal and put forth their
case and the Tribunal be directed to consider the
claims/objections of them, in accordance with law."
10. The appeal was accordingly disposed of directing
the Land Tribunal to consider all factual and legal aspects
of the matter while adjudicating the claim of Shri.
B.S.Dwarakanath by taking into consideration the
objections of respondents No.9 and 10. The parties were
set at liberty to raise all questions for adjudication of the
Land Tribunal.
11. The matter was considered on merits by the
Land Tribunal and it was found that Shri. Dwarakanath was
in possession as on the appointed day, that is, 01.03.1974.
It is in challenge against these proceedings before the
learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 raised a
contention that the claim of Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath stood
decided by the Order of the Land Tribunal in the year 1979
and confirmed by the rejection of W.Ps.No.18484 to
18490/1990. Though, the learned senior counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 contended that the appellants had not
brought the rejection of the writ petitions in the year 1990
to the notice of this Court in the later proceedings, we
notice that Shri. Sudarshanachar was the father of Shri.
M.S.K. Iyengar and a party to the 1990 writ petitions and it
was open to the legal heirs of Shri. Sudarshanachar, who
were also parties to the later writ petitions, to have
brought this fact to the notice of this Court. Once the
question of tenancy raised by Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath was
left open to be decided by the Land Tribunal and this was
acquiesced by Shri. Sudarshanachar as well as the
subsequent purchaser - respondent No.1 herein, we are
clear in our mind that the appellants could not have been
non-suited on the ground that the earlier proceedings
against him stood concluded.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants have relied on the decisions of the Kerala High
Court as well as the Calcutta High Court as to the nature of
the principle of res judicata which read as follows:-
• Kurichiyan Chandu v. Kunjuraman Nambiar,
reported in 1989 SCC OnLine Ker 467:
"6. One of us (Balakrishna Menon, J.) in Appi
Pennu v. Kalyambi Nanan (1984 K.L.T. 763) stated the
principle thus at page 764:
"It is well settled that the principle of res judicata is
only a mode of estoppel to prevent a party bound by an
earlier decision of a competent court from raising the
same contentions in subsequent proceedings. There is no
want of jurisdiction for the reason only of an earlier
decision for a court of competent jurisdiction to decide the
question raised before it. If a plea of res judicata available
to the parties is not raised, it is the duty of the court to
decide the question properly brought up for decision by it.
If a party entitled to successfully raise a plea of res
judicata omits to do so, the court or the Tribunal will be
left with no alternative except to decide the question
raised before it. If a party without raising a plea of res
judicata allows the court or tribunal to decide the question
afresh, it is not open to the parties to the subsequent
decision to challenge the decision in other independent
proceedings as passed without jurisdiction, for the
jurisdiction of the court or tribunal to decide the question
will not be ousted for the reason of an earlier decision by
a competent court or tribunal. The plea that the question
raised is covered by an earlier decision of a competent
court is also one which might and ought to have been
taken by the party who relies on the earlier decision, and
if the court decides the question without reference to the
earlier decision, the plea of res judicata based on the
earlier decision will itself be barred by res judicata in
subsequent proceedings between the same parties or
their representative in interest." "
• P.C.Ray and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India, reported in 1971 SCC OnLine Cal 88:
"15. It has been held that the plea of res judicata
may be waived by a party to a proceeding. In the
premises the plea of res judicata can never be a
jurisdictional question. For jurisdiction can be conferred
neither by waiver nor even by consent of the parties. It
has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajani
Kumar Mitra v. Ajmaddin Bhuiya reported in AIR 1929 Cal
163 at p. 164 as follows: to wit:--
"The bar of res judicata is one which
does not affect the jurisdiction of the court
but is a plea in bar which a party is at liberty
to waive. If a party does not put forward his
plea of res judicata in a suit he must be
taken to have waived it ................... The party
omitting to plead res judicata intentionally
invites the court to decide the case on the
merits ..............." "
13. We are in respectful agreement with the above
mentioned proposition of law. It is quite clear that res
judicata is a principle of Public Policy rather than just a
private right. It exists to protect the system from the
vagaries of inconsistent verdicts and to provide finality to
adjudicated questions between parties. However, it is an
affirmative defence, even if parties waive the plea of res
judicata, the Courts have the power to consider it on their
own motion. However, where a party to a proceeding
specifically waives the plea of res judicata expressly or by
necessary implication, the Court can consider the issue
afresh. In case, the Court finds that the re-adjudication is
not warranted, it would be open to the Courts to refuse
such consideration. However, once the plea of res judicata
is waived and the matter is permitted to be considered
afresh, the plea cannot be raised at a later point in time
when the decision goes against the party who waived the
plea.
14. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that it was a specific case of the appellants before
the Land Tribunal as well as before this Court, that Shri.
B.S. Dwarakanath is missing since 1977 and that his legal
representatives were unaware of the proceedings before
the Land Tribunal. The question of possession as a deemed
tenant in the year 1974 was clearly left open by this Court
in W.P.No.20505/1999 to be considered by the Land
Tribunal. This was not objected to either by Shri.
Sudarshanachar's legal representatives or by respondent
No.1, the subsequent purchaser.
15. In the above factual matrix, we are of the clear
opinion that the finding entered in the year 1979 ex parte
as against Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath cannot stand in the way
of a consideration of his claim of tenancy on merits. We
are clearly of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has
gone wrong in accepting the contention that the claim of
Shri. B.S. Dwarakanath in respect of Sy.No.47 stood
concluded.
16. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the Order under appeal cannot be sustained.
Accordingly:-
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.27727/2013, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The Writ Petition No.27727/2013 is
remanded for a fresh consideration on
merits.
(iv) The Contempt of Court case is closed.
All pending interlocutory applications in both the
matters shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
