Plaintiff's regular second appeal challenging concurrent dismissal of her suit seeking declaration and injunction over 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.55/2, Honnenahalli Village, Tumakuru. The court held prior decrees on the 1927 gift deed bound the plaintiff and refused to remand for additional evidence; the appeal 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1632 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAMMA
W/O LATE NARSIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O S N PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT NAGAPPANAPALYA SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.
7 . DR. HULINAYAK
TUMAKURU SIRA ROAD.
8 . SRIDEVI MANAGING TRUST SIRA GATE
TUMAKURU CITY-572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
((BY SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R7; V/O DATED 24.05.2021 NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED IN R.A. NO.156 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.125 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV J U D G M E N T
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
Narasimhaiah through his first wife Moogamma. Narasaiah had a son by name K.N. Narasimhamurty through his second wife Yellamma. Plaintiff is the wife of K.N. Narasimhamurthy, son of Narasiah and Smt. Yellamma. It is further pleaded in the plaint that, after the death of original propositus Narasaiah, K.N. Narasimhaiah (son of Narasaiah and Moogamma) and his children had sold 1 acre 36 guntas to one K.V. Nagappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 19.01.1972. Similarly, K.N. Narasimhamurthy (son of Narasaiah and Yellamma) had sold an extent of 1 acre 36 guntas in favour of Shambulingaiah as per registered Sale deed dated 01.02.1978. It is further stated that, wife of K.V. Nagappa by name Smt. Mangamma and her children (defendants 1 to 6) have sold an extent of 1 acre out of 1 acre 36 guntas to Shambulingaiah as per registered Sale deed dated 05.01.1980. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that, Shambulingaiah had acquired total extent of 2 acre 36 guntas as per registered Sale Deeds dated 01.02.1978 and 05.01.1980. Thereafter, said Shambulingaiah had sold the entire extent of 2 acre 36 guntas in favour of Mangamma, wife of K.V. Nagappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.1980. Therefore, it is contended by the plaintiff
that the said Mangamma had an extent of 3 acre 32 guntas out of total extent of 5 acre 12 guntas. It is further stated in the plaint that the land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas which was held by father-in-law of plaintiff - Narasaiah, was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 6 have colluded with the defendant No.7 and sold the entire extent of 5 acre 12 guntas in favour of the defendant No.7 as per registered sale deed dated 29.06.1998 and as such the plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction.
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
O.S.No.135/1972 and O.S.No.257/1972 on the file of Principal Munsiff at Tumakuru, operate against the plaintiff and therefore, the suit is hit by res judicata and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
other hand, defendants have examined five witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.5. Defendants have produced twenty-nine documents and same were marked as Exs.D1 to D29. The Trial Court, after
considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 12.06.2017, dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred appeal in R.A.No.156/2017 and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2018, dismissed the appeal and feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
committed by the First Appellate Court and as such, sought for interference of this Court.
Sri. M.R. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court to consider application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is futile exercise and this Court is having jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC to consider the said aspect on merits. In this regard, he refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.P. SUDHANVA REDDY Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION ETC., reported in AIR 2018 SC 2176, in the case of UTTARADI MUTT Vs. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT reported in AIR 2018 SC 4796 and in the case of SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806, and submitted that as both the Courts below concurrently held against the appellant/plaintiff, same cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
Narasaiah
Moogamma Yellamma
(1 st wife) (2 nd wife)
K.N.Narasimhaiah Narasimhamurthy
(died)
Chandramma
(Plaintiff)
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
Mangamma and her children (Defendants 1 to 6) sold 1 acre out of 1 acre 36 guntas in favour of Shambhulingaiah as per registered Sale Deed dated 05.01.1980 and as such, Shambhulingaiah became owner of the schedule property to an extent of 2 acres 36 guntas. Again, said Shambhulingaiah sold the entire extent in favour of Mangamma, wife of K.V. Nagappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.1980 and therefore, the said Mangamma and her family became owner to an extent of 3 acres 32 guntas out of total extent of 5 acres 12 guntas. In that view of the matter, the land available in Sy.No.55/2 is 1 acre 20 guntas held by Narasaiah, which is the subject matter in the suit and the said controversy is to be resolved in this appeal.
K.N. Narasimhaiah, son of Narasaiah has been arrayed as defendant No.3. In the said suit, the Trial Court had given a finding with regard to the gift made by Narasaiah in favour of
his sister Hanumakka as per the finding recorded at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the said Judgment and the said document has been marked as Ex.D26. It is also pertinent to mention here that, O.S.No.135/1972 was filed by Narasimha against Nagaiah son of Ugraiah and in the said suit, issue No.4 is relating to the gift made by Narasaiah in favour of Hanumakka to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas and the said finding has reached finality in the said suit. The Trial Court, has given a finding confirming the right of Hanumakka in respect of the land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas as per registered Gift Deed dated 12.06.1927. The plaintiff in O.S.No.125/2007 is wife of late K.N. Narasimhamurthy and the said K.N. Narasimhamurthy would inherit property from his father Narasaiah who was a party in the above suit. Therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below, that the suit property was belonging to the father-in-law of the plaintiff - Narasaiah and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
cannot be accepted to grant relief of declaration as sought in the suit, does not call for interference by this Court.
in the said suit, K.N. Narasimhaiah, son of Narasaiah was arrayed as defendant No.2. It is pertinent to mention that issue No.4 in the said suit is relating to the land to an extent of 1.20 acres gifted by the father-in-law of the plaintiff in favour of Hanumakka as per the registered Gift Deed dated 12.06.1927.
In this aspect, though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Appellate Court has not considered the documents produced as additional evidence and on careful examination of those documents makes it clear that the finding with regard to veracity of those documents has been concluded in the aforementioned two suits and even if this Court venture
to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court for recording fresh evidence or send back the records to the Trial Court for recording fresh evidence and the said exercise would be futile as the finding recorded in the above suits had reached finality during 1973 itself and therefore, the First Appellate Court, rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. It is also pertinent to mention here that the case of the appellant as contended in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, revolves around the relevancy of the Gift Deed dated 12.06.1927 and question relating to the gift made by the
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
father-in-law of the plaintiff - Narasaiah in favour of Hanumakka has been concluded in the above suits as per Ex.D27 and D29 respectively and therefore, the contention raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the explanation offered by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted on the sole ground that these documents did not require any proof being public documents in nature. Therefore, the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in AKHILESH SINGH (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand in view of Exs.D27 and D29, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Even if there is procedural irregularity as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no foundation in the plaint filed regarding the veracity of the Gift Deed dated 12.06.1927 and in the absence of such pleadings, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge the said ground by producing the same in the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC before the First Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, as both the Courts below have concurred with the fact that the controversy with regard to 1 acre 20 guntas of land has been touched upon by Court in Ex.D27 and D29 and
NC: 2024:KHC:37267 RSA No. 1632 of 2018
as such, the contention raised by the appellant/plaintiff cannot be accepted and therefore, the substantial question of law referred to above favours the defendant, accordingly, no interference is called for in this appeal.
16. Accordingly, appeal is rejected.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
sac* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64
2 issues framed by the court
Is the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction over 1 acre 20 guntas barred by estoppel or res judicata in light of prior suits O.S.No.135/1972 and O.S.No.257/1972?
Did the First Appellate Court err in dismissing the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC without considering additional evidence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akhilesh Singh @ Akhileshwar Singh Vs. Lal Babu Singh and OthersDistinguished¶15
AIR 2018 SC 1240 · Who else cites this
Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka Milk Federation etc.Relied on¶11
AIR 2018 SC 2176 · Who else cites this
Uttaradi Mutt Vs. Raghavendra Swamy MuttRelied on¶11
AIR 2018 SC 4796 · Who else cites this
Samir Kumar Majumder Vs. Union of India & OthersRelied on¶11
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 806
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandramma
Smt. Mangamma
Smt. Savithramma
Sri. Rajendra
Sri. Ramachandra
Ashwathanarayana
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
