LexM/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS versus R N NADIGAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1876 : 2025 INSC 214 M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2025) 14 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether earlier decrees obtained by the appellant for permanent injunction foreclosed re-litigation of the dispute under the doctrine of res judicata and whether declaratory relief could be granted in favour of the State through a suit instituted by third parties, when the State had failed in earlier litigation. Headnotes† C.P.C, 1908 – Parties to the suit decided on merit and attained finality are bound by the terms of the decree – In representative suit, third party having complete knowledge of the previous litigation has no locus standi to file another suit on same subject matter: Held: Neither the plaintiffs in the present suit nor the Government High School, were made parties to the earlier suit filed by the appellant which was solely between the appellant and the State, only for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property – The decree granted in O.S.No.80 of 1978 in favour of the appellant was challenged by the State before the appellate courts, but ended in dismissal – As the previous suit was decided on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is bound by the terms of the decree – As Plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the previous suit and they made no attempt to implead themselves therein, having complete knowledge of the earlier round of litigations between the appellant and the State, they have no locus standi to file the present suit, especially in a representative capacity, wherein they are attempting to obtain reliefs for respondent No.2/State, which itself is barred from encroaching the suit property – Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. [Para 17] * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1877 M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors. C.P.C, 1908 – When a party to the suit did not claim any right, interest, or title over suit property and did not adduce any concrete evidence to show the actual possession, it cannot be permitted to raise the same in subsequent suit filed by the third party in representative capacity: Held: It is evident that the Respondent No.2/State did not claim any right, interest or title over the suit property and they did not adduce any concrete evidence to show that the suit property was in actual possession of the Government in the earlier round of litigations in O.S. No.80/1978 – They cannot now be permitted to raise the same in the subsequent suit filed by the third parties, that too, in a representative capacity – However, the trial Court erroneously entertained the suit and partly decreed the same in favour of the plaintiffs – Though the said decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the High Court decreed the suit as prayed for, by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal – The suit from which the present appeal arises, is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed – Hence, we need not go into the other contentions raised by the parties. [Para 18] Case Law Cited Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and Others [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 549 : (2005) 6 SCC 202; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Bucchi Reddy by LRs and Others [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008) 4 SCC 594; Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and Others [1989] Supp. 2 SCR 356 : (1990) 1 SCC 266 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Specific Relief Act, 1963. List of Keywords Representative Suit; Locus Standi; Res Judicata; Declaratory Relief; Judicial Finality; Government Land; Permanent Injunction; Civil Appeal; Collateral Attack; Public Interest Litigation; Possession; Ownership Dispute; Land Forfeiture; Title Dispute. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RSA No.2823 of 2010 1878 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Tushar Giri, Sahil Bhalaik, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Gulshan Jahan, Advs. for the Appellants. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv., D P Chaturvedi, Abhay Choudhary M, Vivek Ram R, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, V. N. Raghupathy, Vishwanath P. Allannavar, Ms. Mythili S, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.