LexSWAMY ATMANANDA AND ORS. versus SRI RAMAKRISHNA TAPOVANAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SWAMY ATMANANDA AND ORS. v. SRI RAMAKRISHNA T APOV ANAM AND ORS. APRIL 13, 2005 B [B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Education: Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973--Sections C 53 & 53A-Settlement of dispute as to "educational agency" under the Act in relation to a private school-Issue as to whether the plaintiffs or the defendants .were "educational agencies"-Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Held: Not barred- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9-Maxims-Maxim 'ubi jus ibi · remedium' D Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Cause of action-Meaning of-Held: It is a bundle of facts which taken with law applicable to them gives plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant-It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence E of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue-It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded Section 1 I-Doctrine of 'res judicata '-Object and purport of-Held: ls to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgment, as to the points decided F earlier of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties--The doctrine is conceived not only in larger public interest but also founded on equity, justice and good conscience. In a suit filed by First Appellant, a question arose as to whether the First Appellant or the the First Respondent was the 'educational agency' G in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The suit was dismissed on the finding that the First Appellant was an agent of the First Respondent and that the First Respondent was the owner and educational agency of the Schools in question. Succesive appeals thereagainst as also review petition were H 556 -- ·. SWAMY ATMANANDA v. SRI RAMAKRISHNA TAPOVANAM 557 dismissed. Meanwhile during pendency of the proceeding before High A Court, the First Respondent had filed a suit against the Appellants and 13 others for a declaration that it was the absolute owner and the 'educational agency' in respect of the institutions mentioned. The suit was decreed on the premise that the finding in the earlier suit holding the First Appellant to be an agent of First Respondent was binding upon the B Appellants, hence the same would attract the principle of res judicata. In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration is whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in view of Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, and the judgment passed in the earlier suit was a nullity, and C consequently the principle of res judicata had no application. 1 Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. This is not a case where there was not adequate pleadings. On the other hand, it is a case where the documents as also the judgment D produced in the previous suit were brought on record. The judgment contained extensive details of statement of pleadings and issues which could be taken as enough to prove the plea of res judicata. [570-G-H; 571-A) 2. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that if a Court lacks inherent jurisdiction, its judgment would be a nullity and, thus, the E principle of res judicata which is in the domain of procedure will have no application. [572-E) Mohan/al Goenka v. Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and Ors., (1953) SCR 377; Ashok Leyland Ltd v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2004) 3 SCC 1; Management of Mis Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ajit Singh, (2005) F 2 SCALE 151 : (2005) 3 SCC 232 and lshwardas v. the State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR (1979) SC 551, relied on. Mis. R.N Gar.ekar and Co. v. Mis. Hindustan Wires Ltd, AIR (1974) SC 303 and The Vulcan Insurance Co. v. Maharaj Singh and Anr., AIR (1976) SC 287, distinguished. G Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14; V. Rajeshwari (Smt.) v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551; Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Arehano Kumar.and Anr., AIR (2005) SC 626 and Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR (1963) SC 884, referred to. H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R. A 3. Indisputably a dispute with regard to the title over immovable property will have to be adjudicated in the Civil Court alone. Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 merely postulates that the Civil Court will have no jurisdicti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.