Representative litigation and mandatory injunction principles applied to reject binding effect and removal of disputed construction.

A prior decree in representative litigation did not bind the defendants under Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC because compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was not proved, and the omission was not shown to be inadvertent or non-prejudicial. The earlier judgment could be used only as evidence of a prior assertion of rights under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, not as conclusive proof of exclusive title. On the injunction issue, the materials left ownership uncertain, showed common use of the disputed area, and did not establish exclusive ownership or exclusive possession; a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier representative litigation barred the defendants from disputing title by application of res judicata; (ii) whether the plaintiff established exclusive ownership or exclusive possession so as to justify a mandatory injunction for removal of the alterations made in the 'sal'.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier representative litigation barred the defendants from disputing title by application of res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier suit was not shown to have been conducted in compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The omission to follow the representative-suit procedure was not proved to be merely inadvertent, nor was it shown that no prejudice resulted from the omission. In such circumstances, the earlier decree could not be carried to the defendants by way of Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The earlier judgment was, however, relevant as evidence of a previous assertion of rights under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it did not conclusively establish exclusive title in favour of the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The defendants were not barred by res judicata from disputing title.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff established exclusive ownership or exclusive possession so as to justify a mandatory injunction for removal of the alterations made in the 'sal'.

Analysis: The materials, including the prior judgment and the pattas and administrative orders relied upon by the parties, left the ownership position uncertain. The evidence showed free use of the 'sal' by worshippers of both temples and by members of the barber community. The plaintiff had not sought a declaration of title or a decree for exclusive possession, and the suit was brought after the construction had already been completed. On these facts, exclusive ownership and exclusive possession were not proved, and no sufficient basis existed for ordering demolition of the construction by mandatory injunction.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove exclusive ownership or exclusive possession and was not entitled to mandatory injunction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the decree dismissing the suit was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior decree in a suit not shown to have complied with the mandatory procedure for representative litigation does not bind non-parties under Explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a mandatory injunction for removal of construction cannot be granted absent proof of exclusive ownership or exclusive possession.

---