9 of 1997, 10 of 1997, 11 of 1997, 12 of 1997 and 13 of 1997 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bidar urging various grounds.
During the revision of survey and resettlement of the lands in the village, the land in the said Sy.
Further, on the issue of res judicata, it was observed that to take the plea of res judicata, one of the ingredients is that the litigating parties must be the same and that the subject matter of the suit also must be identical.
1053, 1054, 1055, 1056 and 1057 of 2001, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 22.09.2001 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in RA Nos.
The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff deceased respondent number1 has filed the present suit against the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Officer on some misconception of the fact.
39 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Sr.
Thereafter, he filed a suit in O.S. No.
If wants to obtain a effective decree, he has to implead various persons who are in actual possession of various portion of the suit land and seek the effective relief like declaration of possession etc as the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his possession over the suit property The land in old Sy.
255 of 1984 having been filed by the deceased respondent number1 against the same defendants in respect of the same subject matter, with the same allegations and having been decided by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction, on merits after due companysideration of the extensive evidence led by the parties, attracts the bar of res judicata and the subsequent suit in O.S. No.
The deceased respondent No.1 thereafter filed Suit No.
Out of the above land, 20 acres 29 guntas was owned by the first companysin brother of Gurappa, and he was the owner of the remaining 20 acres and 29 guntas.
The deceased respondent number1 also sought for companyrection to companyrect the revenue records in respect of the suit land.
179 to 184 during the revision of survey and resettlement of land.
The present appeals arise out of the companymon impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal Nos.
The facts which are required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder The plaintiff deceased respondent number1 herein since died during the pendency of these appeals, is being represented by his LRs i.e. respondent Nos.
Ultimately, the deceased respondent number1 retained ownership over 5 acres and 22 guntas of land.
179 to It is the case of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent number1 that some discrepancies had crept in while preparing the new revenue records and that due to the wrong entries, the names of the owners and their actual possession did number tally with the survey numbers.
Aggrieved, the appellant Municipality has filed these present appeals before us questioning the companyrectness of the judgment of the learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court by raising various questions of law and urging grounds in support of the same.
Thus, all the substantial questions of law framed were answered in favour of the deceased respondent number1 herein.
The earlier suit was dismissed number on merits but for want of clarity and for want of necessary parties.
Answer to Point No.1 The deceased respondent number1 had filed a suit in O.S. No.
The total extent of this land was 41 acres 18 guntas.
Parts of it came to be acquired by the state government.
Aggrieved, of the judgment and decree passed in the O.S. No.
The revenue records of the suit schedule property of the deceased respondent number1, however, remained uncorrected.
39 of 1993 the appellants herein filed Regular Appeal Nos.
The learned Civil Judge came to the companyclusion on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record that the lis involved in the previous suit between the parties was number finally heard and decided, and was only closed for number availability of necessary and sufficient records and held as under Therefore I am inclined to hold that the properties and reliefs in the suit are different also that the matter in this suit has number been heard and finally decided in all its perspectives in the previous suit i.e O.S. 255/ 84 C.J Bidar .
249 and 250 situate at Balki and as such sought for a declaration that they are the owners of the said property and the assignments of property, if any, created by the defendants appellants as ineffective.
255 of 1984 before the Additional Civil Judge Sr.
Bidar against the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar for declaration that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.
39 of 1993 that the deceased respondent number1 herein had succeeded in proving his title and ownership over the suit property.
On the basis of the factual evidence on record produced before us and the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the rival legal companytentions urged by the learned senior companynsel for both the parties, we have broadly framed the following points which require our attention and companysideration Whether the suit in O.S. No.
39 of 1993 filed before the Civil Judge, Bidar was barred by res judicata?
The learned Civil Judge further directed the defendant number.2 22 therein to put the deceased respondent number1 in possession of the suit property.
This Act was repealed on 01.04.1964 and Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1954 came into effect.
39 of 1993 was number maintainable.
9, 10,11,12 13 of 1997.
249 and 250 were divided into six new Sy.
What order?
249 and 250 of Kasba Balki previously belonged to the ancestors of respondent number1 herein, Gurappa since deceased .
It is maintained as per the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act 1917.
Further, the learned Civil Judge also recorded a finding of fact on appreciation of evidence on record, that the old Sy.
Whether the deceased respondent number1 has succeeded in proving his title over the ownership of the suit property?
255 of 1984, which was dismissed.
It is for the year 1954 1955.
The suit land measuring 4 acres and 9 guntas which belonged to the deceased respondent number1 was shown in the name of one Chaturbhuj Heda and allotted Sy.
249 and 250 was divided into six new Sy.
On the issue of dismissal of suit for want of numberice, the learned single judge held that the dismissal of the suit on the technical grounds was bad in law.
183 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and Sy.
The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 22.09.2001, set aside the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Bidar.
The learned single judge also restored the finding of fact recorded by the learned Civil Judge in O.S. No.
Divn. ,
We have heard the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of both the parties.
39 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Bidar, after impleading certain other defendants therein and changing the description of the suit property.
184 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas which are arising out of the old Sy.
1a to 1g had filed a suit O.S. No.
