KRISHNAPPA Vs. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.26321/2020 is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.1/2023 culminating in the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 25/10/2023 passed by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru whereby the said application on I.A.1/2023 filed by the respondent-BDA under Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908[Hereinafter referred to as the ' CPC '] was allowed whereby resulting in the trial Court rejecting the plaint and consequently dismissing the suit as barred by res judicata

(2.) Heard learned counsel appellants and learned counsel for the BDA and perused the material on record.

(3.) A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the appellant-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents-defendants for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, they are purchasers on various portions of the suit schedule bearing old Sy.No.30 new survey No.30/2 situated at Nagarabhavi Village, Yashavanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 1 acre 11 guntas out of a total extent of 4 acres 16 guntas now coming within the limits of BBMP, Krishnappa Garden, 18 feet ring road, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-72 as described in the schedule to the plaint. The said suit was opposed by the respondent-BDA who not only filed the written statement disputing and denying the various claims and contentions urged by the appellant appellant-plaintiff but also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC inter alia contending that the dispute between the predecessor in title of the appellant and the BDA had culminated in order dtd. 26/8/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.3600/2001 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Vinayaka House Co-operative Society Limited V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2019 SCC 4473 and consequently, the present suit by persons claiming through the unsuccessful parties in the said earlier round of litigation was barred by res judicata and the plaint was liable to be rejected in the present case. The said application was opposed by the appellant-plaintiff who reiterated that the subject mater of dispute before the Apex Court was 3 acres 5 guntas while the subject matter of the present suit was an extent of land measuring 1 acre 11 guntas falling outside of 3 acres 5 guntas and which was not the subject matter of the earlier round of litigation and as such, the matter requires trial and the plaint could not have been rejected as barred by res judicata.