LexSRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR. versus MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 845 SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR. v. MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4227 of 2003) OCTOBER 09, 2014 [ANIL R. DAVE, VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 2, r. 2 and s. 11 - Res judicata - Applicability of - Plea of appellant-trust through its C trustees that respondents/tenants of the demised property were barred by principle of res judicata from challenging the findings of trial court especially the trust's ownership of the demised property, since the tenants filed only one appeal, i.e. arising from one suit (O.S.6178), without assailing identical D conclusions arrived at by trial court in two other suits (0.S. 51 78 and 7178) - All the three suits were connected, heard together, and decided by the trial Court by way of a common judgment, but by three separate decrees - Held: Plea of appellants tenable - Pleadings on behalf of the tenant were E commori in all three suits - Decree, arising from the connected suits and the common judgmeTJt, if not assailed, metamorphoses into the character of a "former suit" - Having failed or neglected or concertedly avoided filing appeals against the decrees in O.S. 5178 and O.S.7178, the cause of F _ plaintiff tenants was permanently sealed and foreclosed since res judicata applied against them. Res Judicata - Raison d'etre and applicability of - Discussed. · Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: On a holistic and comprehensive reading of the pleadings of the Tenant in all the three suits, it is G 845 H 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R. A inescapable that the Tenant had intendedly, directly and unequivocally raised in its pleadings the question of the title to the demised premises and the legal capacity of the Trustees to convey the lands to the Transferees. This is the common thread that runs through the pleadings of B Tenant in all three suits. It is true that if O.S.5178 was a suit for injunction simpliciter, and in the wake of the stance of the Trustees and Transferees that no threat had been extended to the Tenants regarding their ouster, any reference or challenge to the ownership was wholly c irrelevant. But the ownership issue had been specifically raised by the Tenant, who had thus caused it to be directly and substantially in issue in all three suits. So far as the Suit Nos.6/78 and 7178 are concerned, they were also suits sirripliciter for the .recovery of rents in which 0 the defence pertaining to ownership was also riot relevant; no substantial reason for the Tenant to file an appeal in o.s. 6178 had· arisen because the monetary part of the decree was relatively insignificant. Obviously, the Tenant's resolve ·was to make the ownership the central E dispute in the litigation and in these circumstances cannot be allowed to equivocate on the aspect of ownership. Logically, if the question of ownership was relevant and worthy of consideration in O.S. 6178, it was also relevant in O.S. 5178. Viewed in this manner, it is an inescapable conclusion that an appeal ought to have F been filed by the Tenant even in respect of O.S. 5178, for fear of inviting the rigours of res judicata as also for correcting the "dismissal" order. The Tenant had been completely non-suited once it was held that no cause of action had arisen in its favour and the suit was G 'dismissed'. Ignoring that finding and allowing it to become final makes that conclusion impervious to change. Having failed or neglected or concertedly · avoided filing appeals against the decrees in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78 the cause of the Respondents/Tenants was H SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE v. MEENAKSHI 847 AMMAL permanently sealed and foreclosed since res judicata A applied against them. [Paras 23, 24] [872-F-H; 873-A-D; 874-D, E] Premier Tyres Limitec:J vs. Kera/a State Road Transport Corporation 1993 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 14.6; Lonankutty vs. B Thomman (1976) 3 SCC 528: 1976 (0) Suppl.· SCR 74; Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu vs. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (1977) 2 SCC 181: 1977 (2) SCR 636; Sheodan Singh vs. Daryao Kunwar (1966) 3 SCR 300; Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85; Sajjadanashin Sayed vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer AIR C 2000 SC 1238: 2000 (1) SCR 1095; /sher Singh vs. Sarwan Singh AIR 1965 SC 948; and Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji vs. Patel /shwar/albhai Narsibhai AIR 1952 SC 143: 1952 SCR 513 - referred to. D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.