2021 Supreme(SC) 538

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
The Jamia Masjid - Appellant
Versus
Sri K.V. Rudrappa (Since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.10946 of 2014
Decided on : 23-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Res Judicata – Best method to decide question of res judicata is first to determine case of parties as they are put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suits, and then to find out as to what had been decided by judgments which operate as res judicata.
(2) Plea of res judicata may in an appropriate case be determined as a preliminary issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law or fact has to be adjudicated for resolving.
(3) Representative suit is binding on all interested parties.
(4) Since compromise decree is not a decision of court, principle of res judicata cannot be made applicable – However, compromise decree may in effect create estoppel by conduct between parties and parties by estoppel will be prevented from initiating a subsequent suit.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Ingredients – Matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in former suit – Matter must be heard and finally decided by Court in former suit – Former suit must be between same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under same title; and Court in which former suit was instituted is competent to try subsequent suit or suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised – Best method to decide question of res judicata is first to determine case of parties as they are put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suits, and then to find out as to what had been decided by judgments which operate as res judicata. (Paras 17 and 18)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 and Order 14 Rule 2 – Res Judicata – Plea of res judicata would be a question of law or fact or a mixed question of both depending on the issue that is claimed to have been previously decided – Plea of res judicata may in an appropriate case be determined as a preliminary issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law or fact has to be adjudicated for resolving it – Court while determining applicability of plea of res judicata would determine if there has been any material alteration in facts and law applicable – It cannot be accepted 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 – If a matter has only collaterally or in an auxiliary manner been in issue or decided in an earlier proceeding, finding would not ordinarily be res judicata in a later proceeding where matter is directly and substantially in issue – Material test to be applied is whether adjudication of issue is material and essential for decision. (Paras 22, 23, 39 and 52)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 92 – Determination of title in a Representative Suit – Plaintiff can only seek reliefs that fall under any of clauses in Section 92 CPC – A declaration that suit property belongs to trust, does not fall under scope of any of reliefs enumerated in Section 92 CPC and is outside scope of provision – Merely because defendant denies title of trust over suit property, jurisdiction of court cannot be ousted – When title of trust is contested, determination of title of suit property is necessary for the purpose of adjudication on final relief and it can be made ancillary to main relief if plaintiff is entitled to relief sought under Section 92 CPC – If plaintiff is not entitled to relief sought, then in that case no determination on title of suit property can be made since it would be inconsequential to final decision in suit – Representative suit is binding on all interested parties – Judgment of court in first suit would be binding on Jamia Masjid and would preclude it from instituting another suit on same issue if it has been conclusively decided. (Paras 33, 35 and 52)

(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Compromise Decree and Res Judicata – Since compromise decree is not a decision of court, principle of res judicata cannot be made applicable – However, compromise decree may in effect create estoppel by conduct between parties and parties by estoppel will be prevented from initiating a subsequent suit – When no compromise was arrived at between parties on title to suit property, then no estoppel by conduct could also be inferred – Disposal of second suit in view of compromise would not bar filing of suit out of which instant proceedings arise – High Court has committed error in applying principle of res judicata based on judgment in second suit. (Paras 46, 51 and 52)

Facts of the case:

A Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081, affirming the decision of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff is barred by the principle of res judicata. The appellant moved this court in a Special Leave Petition to challenge the decision of the Single judge. Leave has been granted on 8th December 2014.

Findings of Court:

There was no adjudication in the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) on whether Abdul Khuddus had absolute title to the suit property. There was only a prima facie determination that Items 2 and 3 of the schedule of properties to the first suit belonged to Abdul Khuddus. The matters substantially in issue in OS 92 of 1950-51, which was a suit for administration and management of trust properties and for accounts, are distinct from the issues in the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise. Therefore, OS 149 of 1998 is not barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the first suit.

Result : Appeal allowed