B BORAIAH Vs. NINGAIAH ALIAS GUDIGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 3 appeals are filed by the 3 vendees who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court in O.S. Nos. 380, 381 and 382/1978 on the file of the Munsiff at Maddur, Mandya District. The said suits came to be disposed of by a common order by the trial Court as all the 3 plaintiffs claimed identical reliefs and claimed their title from the same vendor namely defendant No. 4 in all the suits. The learned trial Judge in his common Judgment dated 16-9-1983 has referred to the pleadings in O.S. No. 382/1978 for the purposes of facts. According to the averments therein, the plaintiffs claim that they purchased the land by sale deeds dated 18-11-1974 from the 4th defendant. But on 18-5-1975 they were dispossessed by defendants 1, 2 and 3 who trespassed into their land which had been put in their possession by vendor-4th defendant.

(2.) Defendant No. 1 who filed the written statement pleaded that the plaint allegations were false; that the sale deed was a concocted one; that they have been in possession of the suit schedule lands since 1936; that defendant No. 4 who had earlier claimed title to the suit schedule lands had lost his suit as far back as in the year 1945 by, I Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Mysore in R.S.A. No. 9/1944-45 and they have been in continuous possession of the lands since 1936. The suit was barred by principles of res judicata as the earlier suit filed by the vcndor- defendant No .4 was between the defendants and thei father and as such it was barred by the principles of res judicata. They have contended alteratively that having been in continuous possession hostile to the true owner if any, since 1936, they had perfected their tide to the suit schedule lands by adverse possession.

(3.) It is unnecessary to refer to other aspects of Ik pleadings. The trial Court despite coming to the conclusion that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata, nevertheless, decreed the suit on the basis of the entries in the revenue records. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court las reversed the findings of the trial Court and ferefore the present second appeal.