Allowed

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya v. Sri. R Rudraradhya

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023RFA/836/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal, setting aside the Trial Court's order that dismissed the suit based on res judicata. Relying on Sathyanath's case, the Court held that as the plea involved mixed questions of fact and law, it could not be a preliminary issue. The suit was restored for a full trial with issues framed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order and judgment dismissed suit as barred by res judicata set aside. Suit restored. Trial Court directed to frame issues and dispose of suit within one year.

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya Vs Sri. R Rudraradhya — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 836 OF 2019 (PAR/INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. R. K. RUDRARADHYA, S/O. LATE KANTHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶8

MANJUNATH,

¶9

S/O. LATE B. K. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶10

BHARATHI,

¶11

D/O. LATE B. K. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

CHAMPA , W/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 186, BASAPPA COLONY, WARD NO. 2, YAMALUR, BANGALORE - 560 037.

¶14

SHADAKSHRARADHYA, S/O. LATE B. K RUDRARADYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶15

APPELLANT NO. 1, 2 AND 4 ARE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶18

RESIDING AT RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, 560 099.

¶19

KUSUMA, W/O. CHIDANANDAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3, 1st MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K. P. SHRAVAN MADHAV., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI. R. RUDRARADHYA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶24

SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT. RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BEGNALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶25

R. JAYADEVA, S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE, SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶27

R. RENUKA PRASAD, S/O. LATE B. RUDRADHYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU, SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.

¶28

R. VEDAMURTHY, S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT. RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶29

R. MANJUNATH, S/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, C/O. R. JAYADEVA, R/AT. ANNASANDRA PALYA, HAL POST, BENGALURU, SOUTH TALUK - 560 099.

¶30

R. PUSHPA, W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 4/1, MANJUNATHA NILAYA, CHIKKABASAVANAPURA DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶33

R. SUNANDA, W/O. MALLIKARJUNA, D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 7/1, YELLAMMA STREET, DOMMALURU, HAL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 016.

¶34

R. AMBIKA, W/O. BASAVARAJU, D/O. LATE B. RUDRARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. KENGERI, MEGALA BEEDHI, HAL POST, BENGLURU, SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶35

SRI. B. RENUKA SHIVACHARYA SWAMY, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT. RAJAPURA MUTT, RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶36

SRI. B. CHANNA BASAVARADHYA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶37

C. VISHWANATH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶38

10(A) MAMATHA, D/O LATE VISHWANATH,

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶40

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINNAKKI VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGNI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶41

NAGABHUSHAN, 10(B) S/O LATE VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINNAKKI VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGNI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶42

C. NATARAJ, S/O. LATE CHANNA BASAVARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶43

BOTH ARE R/AT., HINNAKKI VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶44

C. UMESH, S/O. LATE B. CHANNA BASAVARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, COMPUTER DEPARTMENT, K.H.B. KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶45

C. SHASHIDHAR, S/O. LATE B CHANNA BASAVARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AUDITOR, NO. 20,

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶47

ASHOK HOTEL, AVENUE ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 002.

¶48

SRI. KALAKALA NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O. YEAR RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT. 123/14, 6th MAIN, KAGGADASAPURA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGLAURU - 560 093.

¶49

SRI. N.V. RAMANA REDDY, S/O. SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

¶50

SRI. NALLA PAPI REDDY., @ MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O. RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶51

BOTH RESPONDENTS NO. 15 AND 16 ARE R/AT. 95/4, GREEN MEADOWS, NEAR KOPPA GATE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099.

¶52

VENGIGALLA VENU, MADHAVA RAO, S/O. BRAHMAN GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. SULURA VILLAGE, BHODANA MANDAL, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT,

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶55

ANDHRAPRADESH - 503 180.

¶56

SMT. VALIVATTI DITARAAMMA, W/O. VALIVATTI VENKAIAH M., AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT. CHINNAVADIPUDI VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503.

¶57

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶58

SRI. R. K. RAJASHEKARAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶59

20(A). TRUPTI KUMARI, D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDENT OF CHANDRAPURA VILLAGE, BANNAHALLI ROAD, ATHIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶60

20(B). R. KANTHARAJU,

¶61

S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶62

20(C). R. SHANMUKHAYA, S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶63

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶64

RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶65

20(D). HEMAVATHI,

¶66

D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶67

20(E). MANJUNATH,

¶68

S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, A GED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶69

20(F). RAVISHANKAR,

¶70

S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶71

20(G). MANGALA,

¶72

D/O LATE RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HEELALIGE VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶73

SRI. R. K. SHIVANANDAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶74

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶75

21(A). S. BASAVARAJ,

¶76

S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,

¶77

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶78

21(B). S. MADHU, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶79

21(C). S. NALINAKSHI, D/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF LINGAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶80

21(D). S. GIRISH, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶81

21(E). S. NAGESH, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,

¶82

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶85

21(F). S. GANESH KUMAR, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH,

¶86

NOW DEAD BY LR, RAJESHWARI. G, W/O LATE GANESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.105, SURYA NAGAR, 1ST STAGE, LIG 2ND BLOCK, ANEKAL ROAD, CHANDAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 099.

¶87

21(G). S. SHANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶88

21(H). S. MENAKA, D/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶89

21(I). S. UMESH,

¶90

S/O LATE SHIVANANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HONAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶93

SRI. R. K. SIDDARAJU WADAYAR, S/O. LATE KANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶94

RESPONDENTS 20 TO 22 ARE., R/AT. RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HENNAGARA POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BEGNALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 099. 23. KRB INFRATECH LIMITED, REGISTER COMPANY, OFFICE NO.1, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH MAIN ROAD, BALAJI LAYOUT, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 094, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶95

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R4, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 AND R10(A) AND R10(B)., SRI. AJIT KALYAN., ADVOCARE FOR R17, SRI. RAVINDRA H.T., ADVOCATE FOR R19, SRI. G. S. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R21(A) TO R21(I), R9, 20 AND 22 ARE SERVED).

¶96

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2016 PASSED ON IA NO.12 IN OS NO.1814/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL ALLOWING THE IA NO.12 FILED UNDER SEC11 R/W. SEC..151 OF CPC. FOR DISMISS THE SUIT AS THE SAME IS HIT BY PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA.

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶99

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶100

JUDGMENT

¶101

This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1814/2006 is directed against the impugned order dated 24.08.2016 passed on I.A.No.12 by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Anekal whereby the said application filed by respondent No.10-defendnat No.3(a) under Section 11 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking dismissal of the suit as barred by res judicata was allowed by the Trial Court, which consequently proceeded to dismiss the suit, by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶102

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶103

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellants-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. In the said suit, respondent No.10-defendnt No.3(a) in addition to filing his written statement, also filed an instant

¶104

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶105

application-I.A.No.12 seeking dismissal of the suit, inter alia contending that the earlier suit in O.S.No.148/1998 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs had been dismissed, as a result of which the present suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. . The said application having been opposed by the appellants-plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.12 and consequently dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which the appellants-plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

¶106

It is relevant to state that since the present appeal arises out of the impugned order passed on I.A. No.12 filed by respondent No.10-defendant No.3(a), notice to other unserved respondent is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeal.

¶107

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged

¶108

in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the facts of the instant case, the issues/questions as regards the suit being barred by res judicata give rise to a mixed question of fact and law which is impermissible to be treated as a preliminary issue as held by the

¶109

14 -

¶110

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶111

Apex Court in the case of SATHYANATH & ANOTHER VS. SAROJAMANI in Civil Appeal No.3680/2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.20375/2021) . It is submitted that various contentious issues, including complicated/disputed questions of law and facts as regards all aspects of the matter, including the defence of res judicata , arising for consideration in the suit, would necessarily have to be discussed only after a full fledged trial by rendering findings on all issues and the said issue regarding res judicata cannot be treated as a preliminary issue, particularly, when the trial Court had not even framed the issues prior to adjudication of I.A.No.12. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit to be restored to file with a direction to the Trial Court to adjudicate upon all issues by framing them and providing an opportunity to all parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

¶112

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.10defendnat No.3(a) would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶113

15 -

¶114

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶115

I have given my anxious consent to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶116

The question/issue as to whether res judicata can be

¶117

treated and adjudicated as a preliminary issue, if it involves a mixed question of fact and law is no longer res integra i n the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SATHYANATH'S c ase (supra).

¶118

As can be seen from the said judgment, if an issue/question relating to res judicata arises out of disputed question of law and facts, the same cannot be treated as a preliminary issue and the suit cannot be disposed of by deciding the said issue since it falls outside the scope and ambit of Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC, which permits only pure questions of law to be treated and adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, the questions/issues as to whether the present suit is barred by res judicata or not as contended by respondent No.10 - defendant No.3 arise out of a mixed question of fact and law, which would necessarily require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by both sides. Further it is relevant to state that the Trial Court has not framed issues in the instant suit and the question of

¶119

16 -

¶120

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶121

passing any orders on I.A.No.12 by deciding the questions/issues as regards res judicata even prior to framing of issues would not arise in the facts of the instant case.

¶122

Under these circumstance, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SATHYANATH'S c ase (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court misdirected itself in allowing I.A.No.12 by coming to the erroneous conclusion that the suit was barred by res judicata , which issue would have to be decided only after a full fledged trial along with other issues after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunities to all the parties.

¶123

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶124

ORDER

¶125

a) Appeal is hereby allowed.

¶126

b) The impugned order passed on I.A.No.12 is set aside.

¶127

c) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 in O.S.No.1814/2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Anekal is hereby set aside.

¶128

17 -

¶129

NC: 2023:KHC:45754 RFA No. 836 of 2019

¶130

d) I.A.No.12 filed by respondent No10-defendnat No.3(a) is disposed of directing the Trial Court to frame and decide all issues including the issues/contentions urged by respondent No.10-defendnat No.3(a) in I.A.No.12.

¶131

e) The Trial Court is directed to frame issues and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by rendering findings on all issues as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶132

f) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including the plea of res judicata are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶133

Sd/JUDGE

¶134

KTY

¶135

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:SNN

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya v. Sri. R Rudraradhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R.K Rudraradhya v. Sri. R Rudraradhya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mushtaq I.S Vs Mr. Narendra S

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs M.N. Ramamurthy

Smt Nagalakshmamma Vs Smt Padmavalli

Sri. Prakash Reddy H S Vs the Secretary

Sri. Muniyappa Vs Sri. Govinda

Smt Leelavathi Vs Sri Vinodkumar Choudary