2021 (9) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian Laws

Property Title Dispute Reopened: Appeal Succeeds, Case Remanded for Trial; Resolution to Be Reached Within a Year.

The Jamia Masjid Versus Sri KV Rudrappa (Since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

The court determined that the current suit was not barred by res judicata. It found that the first suit did not conclusively determine the property's ... Principle of res judicata - maintainability of three suits - suit barred by time limitation or not - owner in possession of the suit schedule property - suit property is a ‘Khazi Service Inam’ (Wakf property) - execution of sale deeds in respect of the property in favour of Defendants 1 to 4 - it is claimed that alienation by Defendants 5 to 9 is void since the Board did not approve the transaction with a two-thirds majority. HELD THAT:- The findings are summarised as follows: (i) Issues that arise in a subsequent suit may either be questions of fact or of law or mixed questions of law and fact. An alteration in the circumstances after the decision in the first suit, will require a trial for the determination of the plea of res judicata if there arises a new fact which has to be proved. However, the plea of res judicata may in an appropriate case be determined as a preliminary issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law or fact has to be adjudicated for resolving it; (ii) While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust; (iii) A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue; (iv) Since the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) was filed by members interested in the Jamia Masjid and the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise (OS 149 of 1998) was filed by the President of Jamia Masjid, the formulation in (iii) above is satisfied; (v) There was no adjudication in the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) on whether Abdul Khuddus had absolute title to the suit property. There was only a prima facie determination that Items 2 and 3 of the schedule of properties to the first suit belonged to Abdul Khuddus. The matters substantially in issue in OS 92 of 1950-51, which was a suit for administration and management of trust properties and for accounts, are distinct from the issues in the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise. Therefore, OS 149 of 1998 is not barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the first suit; (vi) While a compromise decree in a prior suit will not bar a subsequent suit by virtue of res judicata, the subsequent suit could be barred by estoppel by conduct. However, neither the compromise petition dated 27 October 1969 nor the final decree in the second suit dated 27 October 1969 indicate that a compromise on the title to the suit property was arrived at. The compromise was restricted to the issue of the erstwhile lessee handing over possession of the suit property at the end of the lease; and (vii) The third suit (OS 100/1983) was a suit for an injunction simpliciter. The third suit was withdrawn after the suit out of which the instant proceeding arises was filed for seeking a substantive declaration and an injunction. No adjudication on the rights of the parties was made in the third suit. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Res Judicata as a Preliminary Issue2. The Plea of Res Judicata and the Three Previous Suits- Determination of Title in a Representative Suit- Representative Suit and Res Judicata- Conclusive Decision and Res Judicata- Compromise Decree and Res JudicataDetailed Analysis:Res Judicata as a Preliminary IssueThe court examined whether the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-litigation of issues already decided, could be determined as a preliminary issue. It was argued that res judicata involves mixed questions of law and fact and should be decided after a full trial. However, the court noted that in certain cases, particularly where the issues are clear from the pleadings and judgments in earlier suits, res judicata can be decided as a preliminary issue.The Plea of Res Judicata and the Three Previous SuitsOS 92/1950-51 (The First Suit)- Determination of Title in a Representative Suit: The first suit was a representative suit under Section 92 CPC to settle a scheme for the administration of the mosque. The court held that a representative suit could determine the title to the property if necessary for the relief sought.- Representative Suit and Res Judicata: A representative suit binds all interested parties, including those not named in the suit. Thus, the judgment in the first suit would bind Jamia Masjid.- Conclusive Decision and Res Judicata: The court applied the twin tests of necessity and essentiality to determine if the issue of title was conclusively decided in the first suit. It found that the issue of title was necessary for deciding the scheme of administration and that the judgment was based on the determination that the property did not belong to the mosque. However, the court noted that the finding was 'prima facie' and not conclusive, leaving room for further adjudication.- Similarity in Issue and Res Judicata: The issues in the first suit and the current suit were distinct. The first suit was for administration and management of the mosque, while the current suit sought a declaration of the property as a wakf property.OS 748/1968 (The Second Suit)- The second suit was filed by the Wakf Board for a declaration that the property was a wakf and for possession. The suit ended in a compromise, which did not address the title to the property. The court held that a compromise decree does not bar a subsequent suit on the same issue unless it creates estoppel by conduct, which was not the case here.OS 100/1983 (The Third Suit)- The third suit was for an injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the possession of the Wakf Board. It was withdrawn after the current suit was filed. The court held that the third suit did not adjudicate on the title and thus did not bar the current suit.ConclusionThe court concluded that the current suit was not barred by res judicata based on the following findings:1. The first suit did not conclusively determine the title to the property.2. The second suit's compromise decree did not address the title.3. The third suit, being a suit for injunction, did not adjudicate the title.The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a full trial. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within one year.