SURESH KUMAR Vs. S.K. SHREEDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties. This Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the XXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 7363/2009. The suit filed by the respondents for declaration and possession and also for permanent injunction came to be allowed by the impugned order on rejection of the plea of res-judicata and also having referred to a decision cited by the Counsel for the petitioner herein who is the defendant No.2 in the suit, which was to be not applicable to the suit. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed.

(2.) It transpires from the records that one Sri. Shankar sold the property to one Smt. Sayeeda Fathima during 1996. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the said property from Fathima and she continued to be the tenant under rental agreement. The suit earlier filed came to be dismissed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the defendant that the property in question was in possession of the wife and son of Shankar as tenants. However, as certain materials were not available at that time, the plaintiff's suit for possession filed earlier was dismissed. However, he filed a comprehensive suit for possession/permanent injunction and also for declaration, which suit came to be allowed. As against this, the defendant No.2 is before this Court in this Revision Petition.

(3.) The plaintiff in the suit purchased the property from Fathima. After the purchase, plaintiff filed O.S. No.8108/1998. The defendants in the suit did not appear but the suit came to be dismissed on the ground that remedy lies under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The plaintiff pursued that remedy, but however, ultimately before this Court, the petition filed by the tenants against the order was allowed and the plaintiff was reserved liberty to file a suit for recovery of the property. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff. The Court below raised issue of res judicata on the plea of the defendants that it is hit by principles of res judicata, but found that such a plea could not be entertained as the earlier suit was not determined on merits and therefore, will not prevent the plaintiff from suing the defendants.