1. Tax default — Auction sale of land under Karnataka Land Revenue Act — Dispute over confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate — Suit for declaration and possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 213
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Andanur Kalamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gangamma (Dead) by L.Rs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 423-424 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 9728-9729 of 2005)
Decided On : 06-03-2018
Important Points
The principle of res judicata applies when the cause of action, parties, and subject matter are the same in all the proceedings, and a party is precluded from re-litigating an issue that has already been decided.
Subject
Civil Law - Property Law
Act Referred
Headnote
res judicata - Land Revenue Act - Section 158, 177 - The court discussed the history of various proceedings initiated by the appellants' predecessor before the revenue authorities and High Court. The High Court held that the suit was hit by the principles of res judicata as the cause of action, parties, and subject matter were the same in all the proceedings. The court applied the settled legal position on the doctrine of res judicata and concluded that the appellants were precluded from re-litigating an issue that had already been decided.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim ownership due to lack of fresh sale confirmation — Respondents contend the suit is barred by res judicata based on prior judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 21 )
3. The court found the triple identity of parties, cause of action, and subject matter existed, rendering the subsequent suit barred by the doctrine of res judicata. (Para 18 , 19 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure precludes re-litigating issues definitively settled by a competent court between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Para 19 , 28 , 29 )
5. Appeals dismissed with costs; judgment and decree of the Trial Court and High Court affirmed. (Para 30 , 31 )
6. What is the doctrine of res judicata under the Code of Civil Procedure?
Res judicata prevents the same parties from re-litigating an issue that has been definitively settled by a final judgment on the merits by a competent court, aiming to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accord finality to issues. (Para 19 , 28 )
7. What is the triple test requirement for the application of res judicata?
For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must be identity of three elements: the parties to the litigation, the cause of action, and the subject matter of the dispute. (Para 19 )
8. Does res judicata bar issues that a party failed to raise in previous proceedings?
Yes, a party is precluded from re-litigating not only issues already decided but also issues which they could and should have brought forward in earlier proceedings but chose not to do so. (Para 19 )
9. How is the term cause of action interpreted in the context of res judicata?
In a restricted sense, it means the immediate occasion for action. In a wider sense, it includes all necessary conditions for maintaining the suit, including the infraction of the right coupled with the right itself. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 4th January, 2005 and order dated 11th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.410/1998 and R.P. No.124/2005, respectively, whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellants on the ground of res judicata and also dismissed the review petition.
2. Appellants in the present appeals are the plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the original suit.
3. Briefly stated, Appellant No.1 is the wife of one late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa and other appellants are his sons and daughter. Respondent No.1 is the wife of one late Sri Belakerappa and the other respondents are his sons and daughter.
4. The father of late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa (late Andanur Kotrappa) was a defaulter under the provisions of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs.2,600/-. For recovery of arrears of tax, the Income Tax Department had referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, under Section 158 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). The land belonging to late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa bearing Sy. No. 63 of Bisaleri Village, Davanagere Taluk, measuring an extent of 23 acres and 15 guntas, was brought to sale for the recovery of tax dues. The sale was held on 7th January, 1966 and the father of the respondents one Sri late Belekerappa was the highest bidder at Rs.2,600/- and the Assistant Commissioner who had conducted the auction sale recommended to the Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga, for confirmation of the sale.
5. The predecessor of the appellants had filed an application on 3.2.1966 for setting aside the sale. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 3rd May, 1966, however, confirmed the sale. Resultantly, a sale certificate was issued sometime in the month of June, 1966 in favour of late Sri Belekerappa and he was also put in possession of the suit schedule property.
6. Appellants’ predecessor late Sri Andanur Umapathiyappa S/o late Andanur Kotrappa then questioned the order dated 3rd May, 1966 before the Mysore Appellate Tribunal by filing Appeal No.486/1967 (LR) under Section 49 of the MYSORE LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964. He asserted that without deciding his application for setting aside the sale dated 3rd February, 1966, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in passing a final order to confirm the auction sale. The Tribunal by its order dated 27th September, 1967 allowed the appeal and set aside the sale, on the ground that under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner could confirm the sale only after the application for setting aside the sale is rejected. Accordingly, the Tribunal after setting aside the sale, remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, to conduct fresh enquiry into the allegation made by the appellant in his application dated 3rd February, 1966 and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. Pursuant to the remand order passed, the petition filed by the appellants’ predecessor was taken up for hearing on 8th June, 1969 by the Deputy Commissioner and since no one appeared, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the same for non-prosecution. Restoration application filed to restore the said application was also rejected by the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Appellants’ predecessor then carried the matter to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, being Appeal No.167/1971. The same was also rejected by an order dated on 13th April, 1971 as time barred. A review petition filed to review the aforesaid order was also rejected by the Tribunal.
9. Appellants’ predecessor being aggrieved, filed a writ petition being W.P. No.1810/1971 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court while rejecting the writ petition by its order da
