THE JAMIA MASJID versus SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 23-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 672
672
THE JAMIA MASJID
v.
SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10946 of 2014)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata –
Appellant-Jama Masjid Gubbi instituted a suit through its president
seeking, inter alia, declaration that the State Wakf Board is the
owner in possession of the suit property – The defendants (Nos. 2-
4) raised the defence that the suit is barred by res judicata by virtue
of decisions in three prior suits – It was stated in their written
statement that suit property was a personal property of ‘AK’,
predecessor of defendants (Nos. 5-9) and the claim of title of ‘AK’
was adjudicated in the earlier suits – The trial Court framed the
issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue and held that the suit
was barred by res judicata by virtue of suits instituted earlier –
Appeal against the decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the
District Court – The High Court held that the suit was not barred by
res judicata and remanded the matter to the trial Court – In the SLP
against the said judgment, the Supreme Court remanded the matter
to the High Court – After remand, the High Court dismissed the
appeal and held that the suit was barred by res judicata – On appeal,
held: The first suit was instituted u/s.92 of CPC by five residents of
the town against ‘AK’, who was managing the mosque – The relief
sought, inter alia, was settling a scheme for administration and
management of properties of the said mosque – There was no
adjudication on whether ‘AK’ had absolute title to the suit property
and the matter in issue in the first suit was distinct from issues in the
instant suit – In the second suit the relief sought was a declaration
that the property constitutes a wakf and a decree of possession of
the suit property – The said suit was decreed on the basis of a
compromised petition – The compromise was restricted to the issue
of the erstwhile lessee handling over the possession of the suit
property at the end of lease – The alleged claim of title of ‘AK’ was
not adjudicated – The third suit was instituted by the Karnataka
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
673
Board of wakfs for injunction simpliciter – It was withdrawn after
the suit out of which the instant proceeding arises was filed for
seeking a substantive declaration and an injunction – No
adjudication on the rights of the parties was made in the third suit
– The High Court committed error in applying the principle of res
judicata – Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court is
set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to attract the principles of res judicata,
the following ingredients must be fulfilled:
(i)
The matter must have been directly and substantially
in issue in the former suit;
(ii)
The matter must be heard and finally decided by the
Court in the former suit;
(iii)
The former suit must be between the same parties or
between parties under whom they or any of them
claim, litigating under the same title; and
(iv)
The Court in which the former suit was instituted is
competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in
which such issue has been subsequently raised. [Para
17][694-D-F]
Res Judicata as a Preliminary issue
2. It was contended that any determination of the application
of the principle of res judicata can only be made after evidence is
adduced pursuant to a full-fledged trial. The court while
undertaking an analysis of the applicability of the plea of res
judicata determines first, if the requirements of section 11 CPC
are fulfilled; and if this is answered in the affirmative, it will have
to be determined if there has been any material alteration in law
or facts since the first suit was decreed as a result of which the
principle of res judicata would be inapplicable. This Court unable
to accept the submission of the appellants that res judicata can
never be decided as a preliminary issue. In certain cases,
particularly when a mixed question of law or fact is raised, the
issue should await a full-fledged trial after evidence is adduced.
THE JAMIA MASJID v. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
In the present case, a determination of the components of res
judicata turns on the pleadings and judgments in the earlier suits
which have been brought on the record. The issue has been
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.