Public trust property suits must follow statutory procedure, and a final foundational finding cannot be reopened in later proceedings.

A suit for recovery of possession of public trust property must comply with the statutory procedure governing public trust litigation, and recasting the claim as one for declaration with consequential possession does not avoid that bar; where the asserted status arose decades earlier, such a claim is also barred by limitation. The text further notes that, although strict res judicata may not apply if the earlier proceeding did not involve the same party, a prior final determination on the validity of Shivalingayya's nomination and installation as Padadayya could not be ignored and should not have been reopened to reach a contrary finding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for possession of public trust property was maintainable without compliance with the statutory requirement governing suits relating to public trusts, and whether recasting it as a declaration suit would avoid that bar. (ii) Whether the earlier determination that Shivalingayya was validly nominated and installed as Padadayya could be re-opened in the present proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for possession of public trust property was maintainable without compliance with the statutory requirement governing suits relating to public trusts, and whether recasting it as a declaration suit would avoid that bar.

Analysis: A suit seeking recovery of possession of property belonging to a public trust falls within the statutory scheme requiring institution in conformity with the provisions governing public trust litigation. The expression covering recovery of possession is not confined only to cases against a person holding adversely to the trust, but extends to recovery from any person. If the relief is recharacterised as a declaration that the plaintiff became Padadayya long before the suit, with possession as a consequential relief, the claim is barred by limitation because the asserted status had arisen decades earlier.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was brought, and in the alternative it was barred by limitation; this issue is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier determination that Shivalingayya was validly nominated and installed as Padadayya could be re-opened in the present proceedings.

Analysis: Although strict res judicata did not apply because the present plaintiff was not a party to the earlier proceeding, the earlier adjudication by the highest authority on the same foundational issue was a relevant circumstance and could not be disregarded. The same core question had been finally determined earlier, and the court below ought not to have taken a contrary view on that identical issue.

Conclusion: The prior decision on the validity of Shivalingayya's nomination and installation could not be re-opened to reach a contrary conclusion; this issue is against the respondent's case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the respondent's suit stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit concerning recovery of public trust property must conform to the statutory procedure governing such suits, and a finally determined foundational issue cannot be re-agitated to reach a contrary result merely because strict res judicata is unavailable.

---