SRI LANKAPPA & ORS. versus KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 6 · 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
521
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 521
521
SRI LANKAPPA & ORS.
v.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.7545 of 2021)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Suit – Declaration of title and possession – The appellants
had filed a suit seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect
of the suit schedule property – The appellants case was that they
were owners in possession of the suit schedule property – It was
alleged by the Karnataka Industrial Corporation (KIC) that by order
dated 25.03.1968, the Karnataka Government had granted the suit
schedule property to it, for non-agricultural use, and the appellants
sought to interfere with KIC’s possession – During the pendency of
the appellant’s suit, KIC filed suit claiming injunction to restrain
the appellant from disturbing its possession of the suit schedule
property – Both the suit were tried together – The trial Court held
that appellants were able to establish their continued, unhindered
and unhampered possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property since 1929 and they had perfected their title
against the Karnataka Government in 1963 – Hence, the Karnataka
Government had no rights and title over the suit schedule property
on the date of grant i.e. on 25.03.1968 – The grant in the favour of
the KIC was ineffective – Aggrieved, the KIC filed appeal, which
was dismissed – Second appeal filed by KIC was also dismissed by
the High Court – Appeal before the Supreme Court was again
dismissed, therefore, the matter attained finality – In 2018, the KIC
filed another suit for declaration that it was the absolute owner of
the suit schedule property – The plaint of the KIC in the subsequent
suit was rejected by the trial Court, considering all the previous
facts and history of the litigation – However, the High Court set
aside the order rejecting plaint and held that in the circumstances
of the case, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to issue summons,
and its suo motu determination on the maintainability of the suit
before such issuance was erroneous – On appeal, held: In the instant
case, KIC sought only a permanent injunction inits first suit –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
However, it is a fact of equal importance that the appellants had
consistently agitated KIC’s title and KIC was a party to those
proceedings – All the Courts concurrently held that the grant, on
which KIC based its possession, was deemed to be cancelled –
Therefore, KIC could, by no procedure known to law,claim in
another suit, that it was the absolute owner by virtue of the self-
same grant, which was deemed to have been cancelled – The trial
Court therefore cannot be faulted with for holding that the question
of title was directly in issue in the previous proceedings, and merely
because it resulted in findings adverse to KIC, it could not escape
being bound by those findings – Thus, the impugned judgment of
the High Court is set aside.
T. Aravindandam and Others v T. V. Satyapal & Anr
1977 (4) SCC 467 : [1978] 1 SCR 742; Ramrameshwari
Devi and Others v Nirmala Devi &Ors (2011) 8 SCC
249 : [2011] 8 SCR 992; Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 : [2008] 5 SCR 331;
AlkaGupta v Narendr Kumar Gupta 2010 (10) SCC 141
: [2010] 11 SCR 756; Vithalbhai (P) Ltd., v Union Bank
of India (2005) 4 SCC 315 : [2005] 2 SCR 680; M.
Nagabhushana v State of Karnataka & Others (2011)
3 SCC 408 : [2011] 2 SCR 435 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1978] 1 SCR 742
referred to
Para 12
[2011] 8 SCR 992
referred to
Para 12
[2008] 5 SCR 331
referred to
Para 15
[2010] 11 SCR 756
referred to
Para 15
[2005] 2 SCR 680
referred to
Para 20
[2011] 2 SCR 435
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7545
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No.14 of 2019
(DEC/INJ).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina
Madhavan, L. M. Chidanandayya, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Ms. Pritha
Suri, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Ms. Ira Mahajan, M/s Lawyer S Knit & Co.,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., Haridas Bhat, Amith S. J., Rajvir Singh
Bhati, Ms. Shahnaz Rahman, Harisha S. R., Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Special leave granted. The appellants are aggrieved by a
judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court1 which allowed the
reg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.