ANDANUR KALAMMA AND ORS. versus GANGAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 06-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
ANDANUR KALAMMA AND ORS.
  v.
  GANGAMMA (DEAD) BY L.RS.
  (Civil Appeal Nos. 423-424 of 2018)
MARCH 06, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.11 – Res judicata – Auction sale of property in question
confirmed in favour of respondents – Challenged by appellants in
a writ petition – High  Court dismissed the petition, however,
observed that Deputy Commissioner could exercise his suo motu power
to set aside the auction sale as provided in terms of s.177 of Mysore
Land Revenue Act – In writ appeal High Court held that the Court
could not have directed the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the
discretion – Thereafter, revision petition in respect of application
filed by appellants for invoking discretion of Deputy Commissioner
to set aside the auction, was made subject matter of another writ
petition – The issue of tenability of the application u/s. 177 was
negated by High Court and further affirmed in writ appeal –
Subsequent thereto, present suit for declaration of ownership and
possession of the suit property – Dismissed by trial court as well as
High Court in appeal, on the ground of principles of res judicata –
On appeal, held: The entire issue with regard to the confirmation of
auction sale was the subject matter between the same parties in
respect of same land and including same cause of action – Therefore,
appellants were rightly non-suited being hit by the principles of res
judicata – Principles of res judicata.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  The principle of res judicata as enshrined in Section
11 of CPC, is founded on the maxim “Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro
Una Et Eadem Causa”. In the present case, the entire issue with
regard to the confirmation of the auction sale and the sale
certificate issued in favour of the predecessor of the respondents,
was the subject matter before the High Court between the same
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 177
  177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
parties in respect of the same land and including the cause of
action. On that finding, the Trial Court as well as the High Court
rightly non-suited the appellants by dismissing the suit filed by
them for declaration of ownership and possession, being hit by
the principles of res judicata. The principle applies on all fours to
the present case. [Paras 27 and 28] [193-B-D]
Nagabhushanammal v.. C. Chandikeswaralingam
(2016) 4 SCC 434 - relied on.
Shirlakoppa Town Municipality v. Sree Sharada Rice
Mill and Others 1982 (1) KLJ 137 ; U. Nilan v.
Kannayyan through LRs. AIR 1999 SC 3750 ; State
Bank of Travancore v. Mytheen Kannu Mastan Kanju
AIR 1980 Kerala 236 ; Madhavi Amma Bhavani Amma
and others v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and
others 2000 AIR SCW 2432 ;  Re: Forward
Construction Co. and others v. Prabhat Mandal
(Regd.), Andheri and Others AIR 1986 SC 391 ; Ashok
Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR
1998 SC 2046 ; and Re: Gulabchand Chotalal Parikh
v. State of Gujarat AIR 1965 SC 1153 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
1982 (1) KLJ 137
referred to
Para 19
AIR 1999 SC 3750
referred to
Para 19
AIR 1980 Kerala 236
referred to
Para 19
2000 AIR SCW 2432
referred to
Para 19
AIR 1986 SC 391
referred to
Para 19
AIR 1998 SC 2046
referred to
Para 19
AIR 1965 SC 1153
referred to
Para 19
(2016) 4 SCC 434         relied on
Para 28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 423-
424 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 04.01.2005 and 11.03.2005
of the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 410 of 1998 and R. P.
No. 124 of 2005 respectively.
Kashi Vishweshwar, Ms. A, Sumathi, Advs for the Appellants.
E. C. Vidya Sagar, Adv for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. These appeals, by special leave,
are directed against the judgment and order dated 4th January, 2005 and
order dated 11th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.410/1998 and R.P. No.124/2005,
respectively, whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment
and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the
appellants on the ground of res judicata and also dismissed the review
petition.
2. Appellants in the present appeals are the plaintiffs and the
respondents are defendants in the original suit.
3. Briefly stated,  Appellant No.1 is the wife of one late Sri Andanur
Umapathiyappa and other appellants are his sons and daugh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.