H.N. PADMAVATHI Vs. K. CHANDRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 41/2010, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Kudligi, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in dismissing her suit for declaration and injunction.

(2.) Admittedly the plaintiff herein is wife of one A. Manjunath and the property involved in O.S. No. 41/2010 is the property bearing door No. 45, situated at 5th ward of Hosahalli village, within the registration district of Ballari and sub -registration district of Kudligi, measuring east -west 40 cubits and north -south 30 cubits, bounded by east -Jagalur Kudligi road, west -open space of Giriyappa, north -house of Kadamma and south -open space and with a separate boundary to the open space bounded by east -Jagalur road, west -house of the husband of plaintiff and Rundamma, north -house of Kadamma and south -Government road and market. It is seen that earlier to filing of the present suit in O.S. No. 41/2010, there was one more round of litigation between plaintiff's husband A. Manjunath as plaintiff in O.S. No. 160/2002, a suit for injunction with reference to the property having very same boundary and in the said suit the defendant is none other than the respondent herein.

(3.) It is seen that the respondent herein had filed another suit in O.S. No. 176/2002 against the plaintiff's husband A. Manjunath, wherein he sought for declaration of his title to property bearing door No. 19 in ward No. 5 of Hosahalli village, which according to him is the open space, which is referred to in this plaint with a separate boundary. It is seen that the suit in O.S. No. 160/2002 and O.S. No. 176/2002, which were filed by A. Manjunath and K. Chandrappa were heard and disposed of by separate judgments on 14.9.2009, wherein the pleadings of both the suits and evidence in both the suits were referred to in both the suits to compare the same. While giving a finding it is seen that in the earlier round of litigation the suit filed by the plaintiff's husband A. Manjunath in O.S. No. 160/2002 came to be dismissed and against which he did not file any appeal. However the said A. Manjunath, who was defendant in O.S. No. 176/2002 challenged the decreeing of the said suit for the relief of declaration and injunction by filing an appeal in R.A. No. 16/2011, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 9.3.2012. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently a Miscellaneous Case No. 15/2012 was filed seeking restoration of R.A. No. 16/2011, which came to be dismissed on merits by judgment dated 25.2.2013 and the same was subject matter of MFA No. 21548/2013 filed by A. Manjunath, on the file of this Court which was also dismissed.