LexTHE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER versus GURAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 480
A
THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI,
B
BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER
v.
GU RAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8044-8048 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDAAND AMIT AVA ROY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- s. 11 - Res Judicata -
C Essential elements that need to be satisfied before a plea of
resjudicata can be raised by a party-Held: The principle of
res judicata has been codified u/s. 11 of CPC - The principle
· of res judicata is a need of any judicial system, that is, to
give finality to the judicial decisions of the disputes between
D parties - It also aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings
between the same parties of the same subject matter of. the
/is - An issue which was directly and substantially involved
in a former suit between the same parties, and has been
decided and has attained finality cannot be re-agitated before
E the courts 9gain by instituting suit or proceeding by the same
parties on the same subject matter of earlier /is- For the bar
of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original suit
proceedings, the litigating parties must be the same, and
the subject matter of the suit must also be identical - Further,
F for the bar of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original
suit proceedings, the decision in the former suit must have
been decided on merits on the same substantial questions
both on facts and in law that would arise in the subsequent
original suit- In the instant case, respondent no. 1 had filed
G a suit in 0. S. No. 255 of 1984, which was dismissed and
thereafter, he filed a suit in 0. S. No. 39 of 1993, after
impleading certain other defendants therein and changing
the description of the suit property- No doubt the Trial Court
in the suit in O.S. No. 255of1984 filed by respondent no.1
H
480
THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHALKI, BY ITS CHIEF
481
OFFCR. v. GURAPPA(D) BY LRS.
framed certain issues and even examined the documents A
produced by the parties - However, neither the parties, nor
the subject matter was the same in the earlier suit 0. S. No.
255 of 1984 and 0. S. No. 39 of 1993 - Since neither the
reliefs claimed in the two suits were identical, nor the parties
were the same and nor could the decision in the first suit B
said to have been on merits, it cannot be held in the singular
facts and circumstances that the suic in 0. S No. 39of1993
was barred by res judicata.
s. 80 - Notice under, if necessary when suit filed against
a Municipality- Held: Municipal council is not a public officer, C
and no notice is necessary when a suit is fHed against a
municipality - The question of sufficiency of notice u/s. 80 of
CPC does not arise at all.
Suit - Suit for declaration of title and possession- Held: 0
In such a suit, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his title
- Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove
his title independently, and a decree in his favour cannot be
awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been
able to prove his title.
Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar AIR 1966 SC
1332: 1966 SCR 300; Syed Mohd. Sa/ie Labbai
& Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1569:
1976 (3) SCR 721; Ram Gobinda v. Bhakta Bala
AIR 1971 SC 664 : 1971 (3) SCR 340; Brahma
Nand Puri v. Neki Puri AIR 1965 SC 1506 : 1965
SCR 233; R. V.E Venkatachala Gounder v.
Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P Temple & Anr.
(2003) s sec 752 : 2003 {4) Suppl. SCR 450 -
relied on.
1966 SCR 300
1976 (3) SCR 721
Case Law Reference
relied on
relied on
Para 12
Para 12
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15S.C.R.
A 1971 (3) SCR 340
1965 SCR 233
relied on
relied on
Para 13
Para 18
Para 19
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 450 relied on
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
B 8044-8048 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2005 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. Nos. 1053,
1054, 1055, 1056 & 1057 of 2001.
c
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., B. Subrahmanya
Prasad, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Amjid
Maqbool, V. N. Raghupathy,Advs. fortheAppellant.
K. Nagmohan Das, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Naphade,
ShanthkumarV. Mahale, Amith J., Uday B. Dube, Ms. Anitha
· D Shenoy, Vishruti Vijay, Ad vs. for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. GO PALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted in the Special
Leave Petitions.
2. The present appeals arise out of the common
impugned judgment and order dated 15.07 .2005 paExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.