VIRUPAKSHAYYA SHANKARAYYA versus NEELAKANTA SHIVACHARYA PATIADADEVARU

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 21-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VIRUPAKSHA YY A SHANKARA YY A 
V; 
NEELAKANTA SHIVACHARYA PATIADADEVARU 
MARCH 21, 19'5 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950-Sections 50 and SJ-Recovery of trust 
from person not holding adversely-Whether maintainable. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 42-Whether an earlier Judgment in 
C seperate proceeding relevant for detennining status of a person. 
The respondent·plaintilT ftled a suit for possession of the math (a 
public trust) at Jamkhandi claiming himself to be the validly installed 
Padadayya of the math. He challenged the validity of installation of defen· 
D dant Nos. 1 and 2 as Padadayya. He further challenged the installation of 
one S as Padadayya who had .nominated defendant No. 1 as Padadayya. 
In an earlier proceedi_.g initiated by ~ the installation of S as 
. Padadayya was challenged. The Privy Council (High Court of Bombay 
being so designated by the erstwhile Rules) bad held that S bad been 
E '·validly installed as Padadayya as he bad been nominated before bis 
marriage. The plaintitT was not a party to the said proceedings. 
The High Court held that the installation of S as well as the appel· 
lant was vitiated. Hence the prese°'t appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The Privy Council having held in an earlier proceeding 
that Shivalingayya was duly nominated and installed as Padadayya inas-
much as he had been so nominated by Shankarayya before his marriage, 
G which Is the only ground on which Shivalingayya's nomination has been 
held to be vitiated in the present proceedings by the High Court; the 
contrary conclusion arrived at in the present proceedings in favour of 
plaintiff does not deserve to be confirmed. [824·F·G) 
2. The Judgment of Privy Council, even though the same did not bind 
H tht plai~tift' on the prlnCiple of res~Juditata, was dtfinitely a relevant 
820 
r 
V.SHANKARAYYAv. N.S.PATIADADEVARU[HANSARIA,J.] 
821 
circumstance to be taken notice of because of what has been stated in A 
Section 42 of the Evidence Act. There is no denial that the foundation of 
the case of Anadanayya was the infirmity in the nomination and the 
installation of Shivalingayya as Padadayya; and it is precisely this which 
the Privy Council had not accepted. [825-B-A) 
3. If the present suit has to be regarded as one for possession of suit B 
property simpliciter, as is the prayer in the plaint, it would be hit by 
Section 50 read with 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. [825-F) 
4. Clause (ii) of Section 50 does not visualise suit for recovery of 
possession only from a person holding adversely to the public trust, as it c 
has clearly stated about recovery of possession "from any person". This 
would include a person who may not claim adversely to the public trust, 
as is the case of defendant No. 1 in this case. [824-DJ 
Gollaleshwar Dev v. Gangawwa Korn Shantayya Math, [1985) Supp. 
3 SCR 646, distingushed. 
5. If the present suit be taken as a suit for declaration, then it was 
hopelessly barred, because the declaration sought is that the plaintiff had 
become Padadayya after Virupakshayya-1 had died in 1903. As the suit was 
filed in 1954 it was apparently much beyond time. [822-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1769 of 
1975. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.75 of the Karnataka High 
Court in R.S.A. No. 1302 of 1971. 
S.S. Javali, Ms. Anu Mehale and Ranjit Singh for the Appellant. 
S.B. Wad, Ms. J. Wad and Ms. Usha Reddy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
• > 
HANSARIA, J. The respondent-plaintiff has placed himself within 
two horns of a bull and it is not possible for him to avoid strike by one or 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the other. And the bull is no ordinary one, as it has the backing and the 
blessdigs of no less powerful a body than J>rivy Council of Jamkhandi State, 
within whose territorial jurisdiction the suit property was situate, for the H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A recovery of which the respondent made his claim by fiing the present suit 
on 4.2.1954. It is a pity that despite the case of the appellant- defendant 
having received support from the Privy Council, he came to lose on the 
same point, to start with, at the hand of Civil Judge. The High Court, which 
ultimately upheld the view of the Civil Judge, should not have allowed this 
B piquant situation to prevail. 
2. The broad facts of the case at hand consist in filing of the present 
suit by respondent No. 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.