S. NARAHARI AND ORS versus S.R. KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 05-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
S. NARAHARI AND ORS.
v.
S.R. KUMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4289-4290 of 2023)
JULY 05, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII r. 7 – Constitution
Of India – Art. 141 – Whether liberty granted by Supreme Court to
approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said
matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special
Leave Petition available again – Held: It is necessary for the same
to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of the
Supreme Court.
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court
HELD: 1. If a dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of
a nonspeaking order is not considered law under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India, the same also cannot be considered as
res judicata, and therefore, in every such dismissal, even in cases
where the dismissal is by way of a withdrawal, the remedy of filing
a fresh Special Leave Petition would still persist. Further, if on
the said reasoning, a remedy to file a review in the High Court is
allowed, then the same reasoning cannot arbitrarily exclude
the filing of a subsequent Special Leave Petition. [Para 39]
[1019-F-G]
2. This Court is aware of the fact that such an interpretation,
if expanded beyond the specific scope of filing a review in the
High Court is allowed, it would open the floodgates of litigation,
and would essentially mean that every dismissal of Special Leave
Petition must be accompanied with reasons declaring the same.
[Para 40][1020-A-B]
3. Therefore, to put a quietus to such an issue, it is necessary
for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger
bench of this Court. [Para 41][1020-C]
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1010 : 2023 INSC 604
1010
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
Sandhya Educational Society v. Union Of India (2014)
7 SCC 701; Vinod Kapoor v. State Of Goa (2012) 7
SCC 701; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara
Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd (2019) 4 SCC 376 :
[2019] 3 SCR 411; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
(2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 7 SCC 701
referred to
Para 27
(2012) 7 SCC 701
referred to
Para 30
[2019] 3 SCR 411
referred to
Para 34
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
referred to
Para 36
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal (Diary) No.
23775 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2022 in RP No. 365 of
2022 and dated 20.12.2019 in RFA No. 392 of 2012 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru.
Devdutt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Saket Gogia, Javedkar, Dhawesh Pahuja,
Ms. Gauri Pande, Man Singh, Ms. Awantika Manohar, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Sanket
S Deshpande, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals are directed against the impugned order
and judgment dated 20.12.2019 in RFA No. 392 of 2012 (DEC) and
impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 in Review Petition No.
365 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru,
(hereinafter referred to as “High Court”), whereby, both, the Appeal
and the review preferred by the appellants herein were dismissed.
4. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
appeals, for the sake of convenience, are being mentioned herein.
S. NARAHARI AND ORS. v. S.R. KUMAR AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
5. One Late Arosji Rao was the original owner of the suit property
and had two daughters. The said Late Arosji Rao, before his death,
executed a Will dated 17.07.1945, bequeathing the suit property to both
of his daughters in equal share. In the said Will, among other things, it
was stated that both the legatees were to enjoy the suit property during
their entire lifetime, and thereafter, the same was to be transferred to
their respective male heirs. The said late Arosji Rao subsequently died
on 30.09.1945, and the abovementioned Will was probated.
6. The two daughters of the original owner Lt. Arosji Rao, Smt.
Kamala Bai and Smt. Anusuya Bai, as joint owners of the bequeathed
suit property, executed a lease deed in favour of one M/s Rajatha Trust
for a period of 45 years. During the tenure of the said lease, on 07.07.1988,
Smt. Kamala Bai passed away, and as per the Will of the original suit
owner, part of the suit property was to flow to the heirs of Smt. Kamala
Bai.
7. After the death of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.