GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ORS. versus MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 1209 · Decided: 03-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1209 
~ 
GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ORS. 
A 
v. 
MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4227 of 2003) 
" 
~ 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 
B 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 - Res-judicata -
Applicability of - Suit between the parties taken up together c 
-
Issues framed and suits disposed of - Appeal from 
judgment and decree in suit A - Court while entertaining 
appeal, setting aside the finding rendered in suit B which were 
~ 
binding between the parties inter se, when no appeal was filed 
from the findings rendered in suit B - Bar of res judicata, if D 
attracted - Held: In view of difference of opinion, matter 
-:;., 
referred to larger bench. 
Appellants-trustees of a temple, leased out certain 
property in favour of respondents-lessee for 15 years to E 
erect a theatre. The original lessee died. Before the expiry 
of the lease, the appellants sold the said property to the 
_,,.. 
defendants. The widow of the original lessee filed OS 5 
of 1978, suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from 
interfering with their possession till the expiry of the 
F 
lease. During its pendency, trustees filed OS 6 and 7 of 
1978 to claim arrears of rent from the lessee. All the suits 
were tried together. Trial court in O.S No. 5of1978 framed 
an issue no. 2-whether the suit property is not the 
/ personal property of S and whether the plaintiffs are not 
estopped from questioning the title of the landlord or his G 
--..: 
vendors. In O.S. 6 and 7 of 1978, the trial court framed 
.. 
issue no. 3-whether the suit property belongs to a public 
temple governed by the Act and if so whether the suit is 
1209 
H 
-
}--
l 
1210 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A maintainable for want of sanction u/s. 26 of the Hindu 
_).-
Religious Institutions Act. Issue no 3 was decided with 
' ' 
iss~e no. 2. Trial court came to the finding that the suit 
property is not a public temple governed by the Act and 
since the property is found to be the private property of 
\_
t 
B S, sanction u/s. 26 of the Hindu Religious Institutions Act 
,_
is not necessary; that the same having been ~old to 
defendants 7 to 9, the latter have become the absolute 
owners of the suit property and the plaintiffs in O.S. 5/78 
are stopped from challenging the title of the landlord or 
c his successors-in-title. Trial. court held that the lessee was 
entitled to retain possession of the property for the 
duration of the lease in view of the statement the 
defendants in their written statement that they had no 
intention to interfere with the plaintiff's possession till the 
D expiry of the lease. OS 5 and 7 of 1978 were dismissed 
.:i,.. 
and no appeal was filed thereagainst. OS 6 of 1978 was 
partially allowed. Respondents 1 to 6 filed an appeal 
against the judgment in O.S. No. 6 of 1978. Single Judge 
of High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that 
E the finding of title in their favour by trial court cannot be 
disturbed by the High Court as it was barred by the 
principle of res judicata and it was not hearing any appeal 
from the judgment in O.S. 5 of 1978. It held that the temple 
is a public temple and that the property belonging to the 
F 
temple cannot be alienated without obtaining the requisite 
permissibn from the statutory authorities; and that the 
finding given by trial judge on the private nature of the 
property and on title in favour of the appellant was wholly 
irrelevant and unnecessary. The Single Judge set aside 
findings reached in OS No.5of1978 and OS No.7of1978. 
G The appellant filed an appeal. Division Bench of the High 
Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. 
"'" 
4 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court 
HELD: 
H 
GANGA! VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ORS. v. 
1211 
MEENAKSHI AMMAL 
Per Markandey Katju, J: 
A 
-'· 
1.1. The submission that the finding in the judgment 
in O.S. No. 5 of 1978 had become res judicata because 
no appeal had been filed against the judgment in the 
_.. 
aforesaid suit cannot be accepted because the prayer in 
B 
O.S. No. 5 of 1978 was only that the plaintiff/lessee should 
not be evicted by the defendants' landlord forcibly. In 
~· 
their written statement in the said suit, the defendants-
appellants stated that they were not going to forcibly 
evict the plaintiff-lessee. Once this statement was given c 
in the written statement by the defendants in 0.S. No. 5 
of 1978, the suit-0.S. No. 5 of 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.