The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, while dealing with a suit related to injunction and res-judicata, opined that the trial court cannot be faulted with for holding that the question of title was directly in issue in the previous proceedings.
Facts
The appellants had filed a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit properties as stipulated in the schedule (“Suit Schedule Property”). The appellant’s case was that their grandfather was granted the Suit Schedule Property by order passed by the Amaldar, and that after his death, his heirs and the appellants were owners in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. It was alleged by KIC (the 5th respondent), a partnership firm, that by order the Karnataka Government had granted the Suit Schedule Property to it, for non-agricultural use, and the appellants sought to interfere with KIC’s possession. KIC resisted the suit alleging, inter alia, that it was the absolute owner in possession.
Procedural History
During pendency of the appellant’s suit (“1995 Suit”) KIC filed a suit (“KIC Suit-I”) claiming injunction to restrain the appellant from disturbing its possession of the Suit Schedule Property. Both suits were tried together and disposed of by common judgment. It was held by the trial court that the appellants herein had perfected title against the Karnataka Government. For the same reason, KIC’s suit was dismissed. It was held that the grant in its favour was ineffective, as the Karnataka Government had no power to issue it, and further that KIC was never in possession. KIC and the other aggrieved parties (including the other respondents in the 1995 Suit) appealed this. This common appeal was disposed of. The appellate court noticed that the findings of the trial court in KIC Suit-I were unchallenged. KIC had relied on a document to say that the lands were converted, and it dismissed the appeal. The declaration granted in the 1995 Suit (that the appellants herein were absolute owners) was set aside. However, it was held that KIC’s grant had been cancelled. The decree of permanent injunction was however, confirmed. KIC had also preferred a second appeal in which the judgment of the first appellate court was impugned, which was dismissed. The High Court categorically held that a deemed cancellation of the grant of land in favour of KIC had occurred, as due procedure had not been followed while making the alleged grant. A special leave petition was preferred before this Court against the above judgment. Leave was granted, and the petition was converted into Civil Appeal. The same was dismissed. Therefore, the matter had attained finality. KIC filed another suit (hereafter called “KIC Suit-II”). The trial court considered the plaint in KIC Suit-II and rejected the plaint, after considering all the previous facts and the history of the litigation. KIC appealed, contending that the rejection of its plaint in KIC Suit-II was erroneous. The High Court set aside the order rejecting the plaint. The impugned judgment also held that it was open to a court to reject the plaint at any stage.
Contentions made
Appellant: The High Court fell into error, in overlooking the fact that the subject matter of KIC Suit-II was barred by res judicata as the issues in it were directly and substantially in issue in both the 1995 Suit and KIC Suit-I. Furthermore, it erred in ignoring that as per the mandate of O2R2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( “CPC”), KIC, in KIC Suit-I was bound to include the whole claim which it was entitled to make in respect of the cause of action and if it omitted to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquished, any portion of its claim, it could not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. The High Court overlooked that since the grant issued by the Government of Karnataka was held to be non-est by the common judgment of the trial court in the 1995 Suit and KIC Suit I, and that such finding was modified by the High Court, KIC lacked locus standi to file a suit for declaration based on such grant. Reference was made to the High Court’s order where it confirmed that the grant as claimed by KIC was deemed to have been cancelled, thereby stripping it off any right to title to the Suit Schedule Property. Reliance was placed on T. Aravindandam & Ors vs T. V. Satyapal & Anr and Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors.
Respondent: KIC Suit-II was not in abuse of the process of any court of law. The civil court had to mandatorily issue summons to the respondents; and that maintainability of the suit could only be considered after such issuance, when it was contested by the respondents. However, in this case, before issuance of the summons to the respondents, the trial court suo moto passed determination on maintainability of the suit and rejected it as not maintainable. That order was contrary to law. So, the High Court was justified in setting it aside. Reliance was placed on Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy and Alka Gupta vs Narendr Kumar Gupta.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“In the present case, KIC no doubt sought only a permanent injunction in its first suit. However, it is a fact of equal importance that the appellants-herein consistently agitated KIC’s title. KIC was a party to those proceedings. All the courts concurrently held that the grant, on which KIC based its possession, was deemed to be cancelled. Therefore, KIC could, by no procedure known to law, claim in another suit, that it was the absolute owner by virtue of the self-same grant, which was deemed to have been cancelled. The trial court therefore cannot be faulted with for holding that the question of title was directly in issue in the previous proceedings, and merely because it resulted in findings adverse to KIC, it could not escape being bound by those findings.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment was hereby set aside.
Case Name: Sri Lankappa & Ors. vs Karnataka Industrial Corporation & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. __ of 2021
Bench: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Decided on: 8th December 2021
Picture Source :
