Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BEFORE:
JUDGMENT
owner of the land described in the schedule to the plaint, being the
Taluk. The same was said to have been purchased under a sale
property was made out in her name. The Record of Rights and
10660/1993 was said to have been filed in the City Civil Court,
restraining the defendant and its men from interfering with the
plaintiff’s enjoyment of the land. The suit was said to have been
19.9.1998. The court held that the identity of the property was not
even the suit itself, which was permitted by this court. This court
as Re-survey no.4.
upset price to various persons who had lost their land due to
dated 4.6.1959. He had then repurchased the same from the sons
The plaintiff in turn, had purchased the same under a sale deed
dated 1.3.1982.
this Block was said to have been acquired by the State government
Kalappa B – 14 acres,
that none of the persons notified had any claim or interest in land
7
plaintiff, who were the owners at the relevant time were notified
southern half of Block no.9, and Nagaiah Pai was the owner of the
Their names are not found in the relevant notifications nor were
has not acquired valid title to any portion thereof. The suit
guntas.
suit. The defendant had denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was
forest land in the vicinity of the suit property for the benefit of the
TOTAL 19 acres
2. Mr.Sashagirirao
Mr.K.Rangappa
Mr.Doddamuniappa
10
Mr.Beerappa
Mr.Narayanappa -------------
TOTAL 4.00 acres
--------------
It was also claimed that the suit was barred by res judicata
the affirmative, could not be ignored by the trial court, in the later
pleadings.
On the other hand, the trial court having entertained the suit
property, after the same had vested in the State, was an error of
which are shown in the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1)
of the LA Act are clearly of the suit schedule property and hence,
the plaintiff could not have obtained any title to the property after
judicata.
Further, that the trial court had also failed to consider that
the suit was barred by limitation. The land in question had been
appeal before this court in RFA 42/1999 and the appellant having
suit in respect of the same subject matter, the second suit was
same . In any event the plaintiff can only question the efficacy or
suit.
acquisition.
finding in the earlier suit for bare injunction was a bar to the
the judgment passed by the trial court are wiped out. For the
Vs. Rukmani Ammal, (2004) 1 SCC 471. Further, the reason for
withdrawal of the suit was on account of the fact that the finding
of the trial court in the earlier suit was invited because of the lack
dispossession at the time the suit was filed, during the pendency of
16
the same before the trial court the defendant having constructed a
the suit relief was redundant and it was in this background that the
appeal as well as the suit itself stood withdrawn. The fresh suit
not stand divested, as the suit property was never the subject
the trial court and answered in favour of the plaintiff and in the
taken away.
17
res judicata, the learned counsel would submit that to establish the
on the face of it that the issues in the two suits were not the same
possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and
therein having become redundant and the fresh suit filed, inter
the court.
the record, the points that would arise for consideration by this
the suit in the light of the claim by the defendant that the suit
b) Whether the trial court was justified in its finding that the
the ‘LA Act’, for brevity) and such other legislation providing for
Kumar, (1995) 4 SCC 229, State of Punjab vs. Sadhu Ram, (1997)
was not in dispute that the land or property in question was subject
contended that the suit schedule property was never the subject
under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the LA Act. In that, the land
does not find mention in the said notifications with reference to its
the plaintiff in the year 1964 and that the notice issued under
the year 1984, was without reference to the plaintiff. The apex
21
the property in the year 1985, one year after the notification under
Section 17. The apex court while noticing the view taken by the
(Emphasis supplied)
23
very fact, as to whether or not the land is, or is not, covered under
was not part of the acquired land, the civil court would have
vs. Kutubuddin, (1996) 11 SCC 390, the apex court was concerned
face of the above provisions, the apex court has pronounced thus :
“O R D E R
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the
judgment of the High Court of Patna made on 7-11-1974
in C.R. No.300 of 1974. The appellant filed the suit for
injunction restraining the respondents from interdicting
with his possession and enjoyment of portion of the
property bearing plot No. 1323 and the structure
standing thereon. The appellant claimed that though the
plot No. 1499 bounded with Khata No. 246 in Touzi No.
3274 was declared as evacuee property, the house in
respect of which the appellant claimed is situated in a
part of Khata No. 263 in Plot No. 1499 and the same
25
In the present case on hand the court below, though has not
the trial court should at the threshold satisfy itself (prima facie if
adjudicate the matter further, as its very jurisdiction to try the suit
was with regard to whether or not the suit property was subject
defendant. The findings of the trial court that the suit property
The trial court has been compelled to proceed only on the basis of
deed dated 18.2.1980, the plaintiff had purchased the same from
Rangappa as on 1.3.1982.
not the owner of the land as on that day. He had re-purchased the
from the above glaring circumstance, the trial court has also drawn
plaintiff. It cannot be said that the trial court has committed any
error in arriving at its finding that the suit property was not subject
the plaintiff had chosen to withdraw the earlier suit filed in the
appeal, the plaintiff did not choose to seek leave of the court to
file a fresh suit. There was a bar to a fresh suit on the same cause
wider in scope than were the subject matter of the earlier suit.
Hence it could not be said that the suit was barred either under
plaintiff had certainly established her case and was entitled to the
as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv*