TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd other Appellants are his sons and daughter. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of one late Sri Belakerappa and the other Respondents are his sons and daughter. 4. The father of late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa (late Andanur Kotrappa) was a defaulter under the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 2,600/-. For recovery of arrears of tax, the Income Tax Department had referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, Under Section 158 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, "the Act"). The land belonging to late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa bearing Sy. No. 63 of Bisaleri Village, Davanagere Taluk, measuring an extent of 23 acres and 15 guntas, was brought to sale for the recovery of tax dues. The sale was held on 7th January, 1966 and the father of the Respondents one Sri late Belekerappa was the highest bidder at Rs. 2,600/- and the Assistant Commissioner who had conducted the auction sale recommended to the Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga, for confirmation of the sale. 5. The predecessor of the Appellants had filed an application on 3.2.1966 for setting aside the sale. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 3rd May, 1966, however, confirmed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in title of the Appellants) deposited the sale amount, then the Deputy Commissioner could exercise his suo-motu power to set aside the sale as provided in proviso to Section 177 of Mysore Land Revenue Act. 10. The Respondents in the petition challenged that decision by filing an appeal before the High Court bearing number W.A. No. 152/1973, being aggrieved by certain observations and directions issued by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court after referring to the provisions of Section 177 of the Act observed that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, there was no application pending for setting aside the sale. Even so, since the Deputy Commissioner was bestowed with discretion to set aside the sale, he could do so on such conditions as he deemed proper, on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The Division Bench also observed that the learned Single Judge while rejecting the petition could not have made any further observations or issued any directions in the writ proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 7th January, 1975 allowed the appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Davanagere, with a prayer to declare that they are the owners of the suit Schedule property and also for a direction to the Respondents to re-deliver the possession of the property. After referring to the earlier proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal and before the High Court, Appellants asserted that after disposal of the appeal by the Mysore Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 486/1967 (LR), wherein the confirmation of sale made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, for fresh disposal in accordance with law, no steps have been taken for confirmation of sale and for issue of sale certificate by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga till date of the suit. Therefore, various orders passed in different proceedings before the revenue authorities and the Tribunal will not and cannot affect the right, title and interest of the Appellants in any way in respect of the suit Schedule property. The Appellants, therefore, asserted that they are the owners of the suit Schedule property. Appellants also assert that their predecessor, during the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? (vi) What order or decree? 18. The Trial Court keeping in view the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 14012/1981 and in Writ Appeal No. 2176/1989, has held that the prayer made in the suit challenging the auction sale dated 3rd June, 1966 is hit by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. To come to this conclusion, the Trial Court has traced the history of various proceedings that were initiated by the Appellants' predecessor before the revenue authorities and High Court and then observed that in view of the order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 14012/1981, the suit is hit by principles of res judicata. 19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), the Appellants filed Regular First Appeal No. 410 of 1998 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court took notice of all the proceedings that culminated with the dismissal of writ appeal filed by the Appellants against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 31st July, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 14012/1981, whereby the correctness of all the orders passed by the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action comprises of all the facts and circumstances necessary to give rise to the relief. Before the revenue authorities, the Tribunal the primary grievance of the Plaintiffs was the conformation of sale of their immovable property held in a public auction by the Deputy Commissioner and their illegal dispossession from the suit Schedule property. Before all the forums, the Plaintiffs have lost their case and those others have been confirmed by this Court in the writ petitions and writ appeal filed. Thus the orders passed by the revenue authorities have become final, in the sense, auction of the immovable property by a public authority and delivery of the possession of the same is not disturbed by any of the revenue authorities or the Tribunal or by this Court; however the same is also not confirmed by the Tribunal pursuant to the remand order passed by the Mysore Revenue Tribunal in the appeal No. 486/1967. Thirdly, the subject matter is the same in all the proceedings, namely, suit Schedule property bearing No. 63, measuring 23 acres and 15 guntas situate at the Bisaleri village, Davanagere district. 32. The doctrine of res judicata would apply in these proceedings, for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell as the Trial Court committed manifest error in invoking the principle of res judicata to non-suit the Appellants and dismiss the suit for possession on the basis of their title and to declare them as owners of the suit property. 21. The Respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the Trial Court as well as the High Court had justly rejected the suit preferred by the Appellants as it was hit by the principles of res judicata. The Respondents have supported the analysis and conclusion reached by the Trial Court as well as the High Court in this regard. They pray for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits. 22. We have heard Mr. Kashi Vishweshar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants land Mr. E.C. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 23. The factual matrix noticed by the Trial Court and reiterated by the High Court in the impugned judgment is indisputable. In that, the predecessor in title of the Appellants had committed default in paying tax for which the suit property was put to auction in which the predecessor in title of the Respondents was the highest bidder. The auction sale was confirmed by the competent authority. The correctness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts, being Writ Petition No. 14012/1981. The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by judgment dated 31st July, 1989 considered the tenability of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and the Appellate Tribunal, in particular, orders dated 4th August, 1978, 24th March, 1980 and 31st January, 1981. The order dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge is, in our opinion, crucial to answer the issue that arises for our consideration. The order dated 31st July, 1989 reads thus: ORDER This Writ Petition is of the year 1981. I hope by disposing it off I would have given quietus to a controversy which appears to have arisen in the year 1966 when the predecessor in interest of the Respondents one Andanur Umapathiyappa lost 26 acres of land for having defaulted in payment of income tax arrears for recovery of which sum, lands were sold by public auction and purchased by the contesting Respondent who was also placed in possession immediately. 2. It is common ground that the lands have been in possession of the Petitioner since the date of the auction sale and notwithstanding many endeavours made by the Respondents to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was wrong on the part of the appellate Tribunal to have lent support to the application made by the Respondents demanding or seeking exercise of suo moto powers by Deputy Commissioner acting Under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, it seems to me on this short ground the writ petition has to succeed and hence it is I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and that of the Deputy Commissioner Annexure-C, E and F. No costs. 25. This decision was challenged by the Appellants by way of writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which, however, was summarily dismissed vide order dated 8th December, 1989, The same reads thus: ORDER The view taken by the learned Single Judge with regard to Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act does not call for interference. Hence, this Appeal is rejected. With the rejection of this appeal, even the issue of tenability of application Under Section 177 of the Act became final against the Appellants. 26. After all these proceedings, the Appellants resorted to a civil suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Davanagere, being O.S. No. 27/90,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fendants are in possession of the suit Schedule property pursuant to order of confirmation of sale passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which had been set aside by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. 21. The other proceedings initiated by the father of the Plaintiffs is to approach the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the sale by filing an application Under Section 177 of the Act. Though, initially the Deputy Commissioner had rejected the application as not maintainable before him, on an application filed for review of his order, he had entertained the application by observing in his order that an application filed by the defaulter to initiate suo-motu powers by him under proviso to Section 177 of the Act is maintainable. The correctness or otherwise of this order was questioned by the legal representatives of the late Sri Belekerappa-the Defendants before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 304/1973 filed Under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.1.1981 holds that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in invoking his powers Under Section 177 of the Act on an application filed by the defaulter to set aside the sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa". In a recent decision in the case of Nagabhushanammal v. C. Chandikeswaralingam (2016) 4 SCC 434 this Court observed thus: 15. 'Res judicata' literally means a 'thing adjudicated' or 'an issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision [Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edn., 1336-37]. The principle operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. It aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accords finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies and was decided and has become final, so that the parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation is put an end to and valuable time of the court is saved. (See Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair. (1994) 2 SCC 14.) 16. In Jaswant Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property (1985) 3 SCC 648 this Court has laid down a test for determining whether a subsequent suit is barred by res judicata: (SCC p. 657, para 14) 14.... In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the P....