Dismissed

Sri. B. K. Ramakrishna v. Sri Shivanna

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022RFA/864/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular first appeal against the rejection of a plaint, the High Court held that the appeal was hit by the doctrine of res judicata as rights of parties had been adjudicated and attained finality in R.F.A. No.459/2016 based on a compromise. The appellant's claim for partition in a subsequent suit was dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; plaint ordered to stand rejected; no costs awarded.

Sri. B. K. Ramakrishna Vs Sri Shivanna — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶7

R.F.A No.864 OF 2020 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI B.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS NO.661, 9^TH CROSS BAGALUKUNTE NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073. …APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SHRI BOPAIAH A.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SHIVANNA

¶13

ADOPTED SON OF BANDI SIDDANNA

¶14

@ SIDDANNA AND

¶15

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRAHARA, JALA HOBLI YELAHANKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI B.K. RAJANNA S/O LATE SRI DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.315 9^TH CROSS, BAGALUKUNTE NAGASANDRA POST

¶17

BENGALURU-560 073.

¶18

¶19

RFA 864/2020

¶20

B.K. RAMANNA S/O LATE SRI DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9^TH CROSS BAGALUKUNTE NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073.

¶21

SMT.JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA D/O LATE SRI DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT No.320, 14^TH CROSS ROAD RAJAJINAGAR 3^RD BLOCK BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

SMT.NEELAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA D/O LATE DODDAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT DASARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 073.

¶23

SMT. MUNIKEMPAMMA @ SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA D/O LATE SIDDANNA @ BANDI SIDDANNA W/O SRI SIDDAPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDABIDARAKALLU YESHWANTHUPRA HOBLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073.

¶24

SRI. H. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SRI HANUMANTHARAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.27 1^ST MAIN ROAD VENKATARANGAPURAM BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS

¶25

¶26

RFA 864/2020

¶27

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 AND 6 IN O.S.NO.308/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, ALLOWING I.A.NO.3 AND 6 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶28

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, UMESH M. ADIGA, J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Plaintiff in O.S.No.308/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, has preferred this appeal against the orders passed on I.As No.3 & 7 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 09.10.2019 and rejecting the plaint.

¶31

Plaintiff's case is, the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties. One Late Kariyanna was the Propositus of the family and grand father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6. He had three sons, namely, Bandi Siddanna alias Siddanna,

¶32

RFA 864/2020

¶33

Dodda Kempaiah and Chikka Kempaiah. Chikka Kempaiah was given in adoption vide registered Adoption Deed dated 28.01.1952 to Shri Hanumanthappa and Smt.Siddaramakka of

¶34

Bagalakunte.

¶35

Late Kariyanna and his wife, Kempajamma were residing at Tarahunase Agrahara and cultivating the lands. Dodda Kempaiah, i.e., plaintiff's father migrated to Bagalakunte village in 1940 to eke out additional income for maintenance of the family. He used to transport sand from various water-bund areas and supply the same to brick manufacturing industries. He also used to transport grass to village dairies and supply water through bullock cart. He used to contribute his income to the joint family. From the said income, the suit properties were purchased.

¶36

Kariyanna and his two sons continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit property mentioned in the plaint 'A' Schedule.

¶37

¶38

RFA 864/2020

¶39

Defendant No.6 filed O.S.No.3835/1995

¶40

before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for partition and separate possession of suit property. In that suit, Plaintiff herein was defendant No.2 and his father was defendant No.1. The said suit was partly decreed by the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005. Respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree before this Court in R.F.A.No.459/2006. During the pendency of the said appeal, behind the back of plaintiff herein and other parties to the said suit, plaintiff and defendant No.6 in O.S.No.3835/1995 have compromised the matter and accordingly, the R.F.A.No.459/2006 stood disposed of on 27.07.2016. Plaintiff's case is, the said compromise was obtained by playing fraud. Therefore, it is not binding on him.

¶41

Plaintiff's further case is, after learning about the fraudulent decree obtained by plaintiff and defendant No.6 in O.S.No.3835/1995, in R.F.A.No.459/2006, plaintiff demanded for partition. However, defendants

¶42

¶43

RFA 864/2020

¶44

No.1 and 6 refused to effect partition. On the contrary,

¶45

they tried to alienate the suit properties. In view of the same, the present suit was filed before the Trial Court claiming for partition.

¶46

In the instant suit, defendants No.1 and 7 have filed separate applications under Order7 Rule II (a) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit and that the suit was barred by time.

¶47

The learned Trial Judge by impugned order has rejected the plaint. Hence, this appeal.

¶48

After hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant, the appeal is disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶49

At the time of disposal of I.As under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no need to refer to the defence taken by the defendants. According to plaint averments, O.S.No.3835/1995 was

¶50

¶51

RFA 864/2020

¶52

filed by defendant No.6 in the present suit, against plaintiff-appellant and others before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The said suit was partly decreed after contest. Defendant No.1 has preferred an appeal against the said decree and judgment in R.F.A.No.459/2016 before this Court. Appellant was party in the said appeal. The appeal has been disposed of in terms of the compromise. Appellant contends that by playing fraud on the other parties, defendants No.1 and 6 have compromised the appeal behind his back. If that be so, then, appellant ought to have initiated proceedings to get the compromise decree set aside and separate suit claiming partition in respect of properties including the properties which were subject matter in R.F.A.No.459/2016 is not maintainable.

¶53

Thus the rights of parties in O.S.No.3835/1995 stood adjudicated in R.F.A.

¶54

No.459/2016, and the same has attained finality and binding on all parties in the appeal. Admittedly, plaintiff herein was a party in R.F.A.No.459/2016. Therefore,

¶55

¶56

RFA 864/2020

¶57

the instant suit is hit by doctrine of Res Judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶58

The learned Trial Judge has considered these points Para 24 of the impugned judgment. No grounds are made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It appears, to defeat the claim of purchaser of the one of the suit property by defendant No.7, this suit has been filed.

¶59

In view of the above discussion, we pass the

¶60

following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. B. K. Ramakrishna v. Sri Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. K. Ramakrishna v. Sri Shivanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopala Gowda Vs Prakash S

Sri.Sharanagouda G Patil Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha

Sri Ravindranatha Vs Smt Rukminamma

Smt. Arpitha Vs Smt. Veena G

M/S C.B.A. Hotels Vs M.Srinivas

Mrs. Jacintha Violet Yadu Vs Sri. Jayasheela