The Karnataka High Court dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a plaintiff against judgments barring a suit based on adverse possession. The Court held the matter was covered by Section 11 of CPC. The appeal was also dismissed for being devoid of merits, and the adjournment application regarding delay was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SREENIVASA, S/O HALAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O HALESIDDAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 202.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by REKHA ANKAIAH Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2023:KHC:39395 RSA No. 725 of 2020
6. NAGARAJAPPA,
S/O CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT BANDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 202.
…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.10/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.01.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.222/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant was notified that the matter will be heard on merit as well as on delay.
The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and for consequential injunction is dismissed by both the Courts by taking cognizance of the dismissal of the
plaintiff's suit in O.S.No.252/1997 seeking the same reliefs
and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.30/2007.
was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.03.2007 and confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 16.04.2010 in R.A.No.30/2007. The defendants on these sets of defences claimed that the present suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.
of the Trial Court, the plaintiff herein preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Court in R.A.No.10/2015. The Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding authority, has re-assessed the entire material on record. While examining the findings of the Trial Court on issue No.4, the Appellate Court took a divergent view. Though the Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Trial Court that the suit is not maintainable, the reasons and findings recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.4 were not accepted by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court, referring to the principles governing Section 11 of CPC, however, held that the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief's are substantially covered under the earlier suit and therefore held that it is clearly hit by Section 11 of CPC. Having modified the reasoning of the Courts of First Instance, the Appellate Court declined to entertain the appeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. These concurrent judgments are under challenged.
8. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused
the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
Court in R.A.No.30/2007 decided the plea of adverse possession. If the matter in issue is heard and finally decided by the competent Court and if the plaintiff has accepted the judgment rendered in R.A.No.30/2007, this Court is of the view that the conclusions and findings recorded in R.A.No.30/2007 operate as a resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC, and the plaintiff could not have maintained the second suit seeking same reliefs. The findings and conclusions recorded by the Appellate Court in the present appeal R.A.No.10/2015 by taking cognizance of the adjudication of plaintiff's title in an earlier round of litigation are in accordance with law.
Therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .
Since this Court has come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the case and no substantial question of law would arise for consideration, this Court is not inclined
NC: 2023:KHC:39395 RSA No. 725 of 2020
to condone the delay of 199 days in filing the captioned second appeal. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2020 is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed seeking title by adverse possession is barred by res judicata after the same was finally decided in an earlier appeal.
Whether the delay in filing the second appeal can be condoned.
Sri. Sreenivasa
Manjunatha
Sri. Jayanna
Smt. Sobhagya
Kum. Pankaja
Kum. Jyothi
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
