Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Smt Lakshmidevamma

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O SRI. M.D. ASHWATHAPPA, D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 562 157.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. VENKATESH N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶17

SRI. ASHWATHA REDDY, D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶18

SRI. RAGHUNATHA REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY (LATE), S/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. SUNANDAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/AT HUDUGURU VILLAGE, D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶25

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/AT ITAGALPURA, RAJANUKUNTE-560 089, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶26

SRI. PRAKASH REDDY, S/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT SIDDINAHALLI VILLAGE, D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶27

SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 AND 9 ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/AT SIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶32

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA (LATE), D/O LATE ASHWATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶33

SRI. SUBBA REDDY, H/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE, D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶34

SMT. ROOPA, W/O SRI BHASKAR REDDY, D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/AT GUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE, D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶35

SMT. RADHA, W/O SRI. SANATH KUMAR, D/O LATE LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/AT D PALYA VILLAGE, D PALYA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN CODE: 561 206.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.09.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.60/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.

¶41

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶45

The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and injunction based on the registered gift deed dated 14.06.2017 was dismissed. The Trial Court while dismissing the suit, particularly taking note of doctrine of res judicata, in paragraph No.38 comes to the conclusion that in former suit in O.S.No.191/2010 against the mother of the plaintiff herein for the main relief of declaration and permanent injunction, after its contest, the same was dismissed on 15.04.2015, wherein the Court held that Kenchamma was not the owner of the present suit properties and the defendants

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

herein preferred an appeal in R.A.No.123/2015 and the plaintiff’s mother Kenchamma also filed cross-objection in that appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 14.11.2016 and the cross-objection was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the defendants herein have challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A.No.465/2017 and the same is pending for consideration. However, the mother of the plaintiff had not challenged the dismissal of the cross-objection and the same has attained its finality. Hence, the Trial Court taking into note of the claim made by the mother in the earlier suit and also the crossobjection, comes to the conclusion that the present suit cannot be entertained and the same suffers from res judicata, since already finding was given by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and hence dismissed the suit.

¶49

Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.40/2022 and the First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, re-assessed the same and formulated the point for consideration whether the judgment and decree of the Trial

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Court is illegal and calls for an interference. The First Appellate Court while considering the matter on merits, particularly in paragraph No.18 taken note of the plaintiff claims her right, title and interest on the gift deed at Ex.P.4 dated 14.06.2017 executed by her mother Kenchamma, who claims her right, title through the revenue documents standing in the name of Nanjundappa S/o Avalappa. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides, in paragraph No.23 comes to the conclusion that the defendants have filed the suit in O.S.No.191/2010 in respect of the suit properties, which came to be dismissed on 15.04.2015 and they filed an appeal in R.A.No.123/2015, which also came to be dismissed. Further observation is made that it is an undisputed fact that the mother of the plaintiff Kenchamma had also filed the crossobjection, which also came to be dismissed in the said appeal. In paragraph No.26, an observation is made that the mother of the plaintiff Kenchamma raised her title over the suit properties in the former suit, which came to be rejected by the Trial Court and in the appeal also, her claim for title was rejected. The daughter of Kenchamm, the plaintiff, now comes up with the

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

plea that she is the absolute owner and she acquired the title over the suit property through the registered gift deed dated 14.06.2017 executed by Kenchamma/mother of the plaintiff. Having taken note of the said findings, in paragraph No.28 discussed that there is no specific issue raised with regard to res judicata in this case before the learned Senior Civil Judge. However, taking into note of the material on record, pleadings of the parties, both the parties aware of the previous title suit with regard to the suit properties and pleaded about the previous litigation in respect of the same suit property. The parties led the evidence on the previous litigation also and both the parties aware of their positions and led the evidence on the said previous litigation. Having taken note of the same, even in the absence of any issue of res judicata, the same will not affect the rights of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.

¶56

The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has not framed any issue with regard to res judicata is concerned. The learned counsel would contend that in the absence of res judicata, the Trial Court ought not to have considered the same.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,

¶60

the fact is that when the parties pleaded before the Court, the issues will be framed based on the pleadings of the parties. Even the defendants have also not raised the objection with regard to res judicata is concerned. However, during the course of trial, it is emerged that earlier proceedings was there before the Court in respect of the same parties and both of them have claimed the right in respect of the very same suit, the rights even including the plaintiff’s mother. The plaintiff’s mother was unsuccessful in the suit as well as in the appeal and when the judgment of earlier suit has attained finality in dismissing the claim of the plaintiff, subsequently gift deed was executed and based on the subsequent gift deed, claiming the ownership. When the mother was unsuccessful, the question of executing gift deed in favour of the daughter and filing a suit through the daughter claiming the title does not arise. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and both the Courts have taken note of the material available on record and also the claim made by the plaintiff’s mother earlier and she was unsuccessful and subsequently afterthought created a gift deed in favour of the

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:40040 RSA No. 1001 of 2025

¶62

9 -

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

daughter and got filed the suit through the daughter seeking the relief of declaration and hence the appellant/plaintiff has not made out any case to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law.

¶65