GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 09,2014
GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE
Appellant
VERSUS
MEENAKSHI AMMAL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PANCHANADA VELAN V. VAITHINATHA SASTRIAL [REFERRED TO]ZAHARIA V. DEBIA [REFERRED TO]
ISUP ALI V. GOUR CHANDRA DEB [REFERRED TO]
PRAGDASJI GURU BHAGWANDASJI VS. ISHWARLALBHAI NARSIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
ISHAR SINGH VS. SARWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHEODAN SINGH VS. DARYAO KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
LONANKUTTY VS. THOMMAN [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA PRABHU VENKATESWARA PRABHU VS. NARAYANA PRABHU KRISHNA PRABHU [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER TYRES LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SAJJADANASHIN SAYED MD B E EDR D VS. MUSA DADABHAI UMMER [REFERRED TO]
CHITIVALASA JUTE MILLS VS. JAYPEE REWA CEMENT [REFERRED TO]
MRS GERTRUDE OATES VS. MRSMILLICENT D SILVA [REFERRED TO]
AMAR AHMED VS. DURGAH COMMITTEE, AJMER [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
S RAJESWARI VS. PERUMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-420] [REFERRED TO]SURESH KUMAR KANKARIYA VS. K. JIGIBAI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAYILVEL S/O, LATE KUMARAN VS. CHITRA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-217] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. HARBANS LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2023-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARLAL VS. MAHILA RAMDAI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-9-231] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SEKHRI AND ANOTHER VS. AYUSH SEKHRI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-180] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHYAMALA VS. RAVI [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-405] [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR JAIN VS. ARCHANA GARG [LAWS(UTN)-2019-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
THAMBIKILAIYAN @ THANGAVEL VS. ARULMIGHU THAMBI KILAYAN SWAMY THIRUKOVIL POTHIAMOOPPANUR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
A.CHANDRASEKARAN VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
PITCHAMUTHU VS. PANNEERSELVAM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-454] [REFERRED TO]
JETHU SINGH(ALL SONS OF SHRI RIDMAL SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI AJAB JAIRAM LAD VS. SHRI GULAB JAIRAM LAD AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
JIGYASA TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-121] [REFERRED TO]
GEORGE THARAKAN VS. MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND VS. OM RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2022-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY VS. KAVERI [LAWS(MAD)-2021-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
NAGJIBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL VS. MUKESH [LAWS(GJH)-2022-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
P.HARI PRASAD VS. G.DURAISAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
7 STAR DISTILLERIES VS. KOPARGAON SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-114] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI RAM SAHU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VS. VINOD KUMAR RAWAT [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LT. CDR ANNIE NAGARAJA [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRAKSH PUNA RAM GEHLOT VS. JAGDISH SANKHLA AND COMPANY [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
ANARKALI VS. SIYAWATI [LAWS(ALL)-2024-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
M/S ABM BUILDERS (P.) LTD VS. CORPORATION OF COCHIN [LAWS(KER)-2022-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
E.P.SAJITHKUMAR VS. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-175] [REFERRED TO]
THEIRY SANTHANAMAL VS. VISWANATHAN & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY AND ORS. VS. SELVI GANESH AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. IQBAL BANU VS. RAMESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
MALIAKKAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-138] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. PRITHIVI SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2015-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNATH EXPORTS PVT LIMITED VS. VINITA MEHTA & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2018-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAVATI AND ORS. VS. MANDAKINI [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
SAMI VS. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI AND 8 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-645] [REFERRED TO]
BIMALA TIWARI VS. RIZIA BEGUM [LAWS(CAL)-2020-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY; DIRECTOR, CHENNAI CAMPUS INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY VS. SELVI GANESH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF MARITIME LAW INDIAN MARITIME UNIVERSITY, UTHANDI UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-369] [REFERRED]
AVINASH KUMAR RAY VS. KUMARI CHHAYA RAY [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-102] [REFERRED TO]
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY VS. J. SRIRAM [LAWS(MAD)-2023-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
PREM LAL YADAV VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD CHANDRAVANSI [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
PALIKA TOWNS LLP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SUSHILA SURI VS. DR. SUSHEEL SURI [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
PAPAIAH REDDY AND ORS. VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA MILK FEDERATION [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
GYANESHWAR PRASAD VS. MAHANT SANTNAND SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2021-11-79] [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAMMAL VS. P.N.NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-208] [REFERRED TO]
KANDURI CHARAN BEHERA VS. RAMESH CH ROUL [LAWS(ORI)-2020-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
H P STATE FOREST CORPORATION VS. KAHAN SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
PATTI @ BEGARI RAMAIAH VS. STATE OF A. P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
MUHURTAAM EVENT MANAGEMENT PVT LTD VS. T.K.S.VILLALAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-421] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RAMNATH EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VS. VINITA MEHTA [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG VS. RAVI [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
PARSO VS. DUMNU RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
B.T. KUMAR VS. K. SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2024-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
W CHANDRASEKARAN VS. SELVAKODI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-472] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)A maze of facts and events, and a labyrinth of legal conundrums confront us in the course of the determination of this Appeal. Essentially, it is the ambit and sweep of the principle of res judicata that is at the centre of controversy. Additionally, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC" for brevity), which enshrines but another complexion of res judicata, also requires to be cogitated upon. The contention of the Appellant through its Trustees (hereafter referred to as 'Trust') is that the Respondents/Tenants ('Tenants' for brevity) of the demised property are barred by the principle of res judicata from challenging the findings of the Trial Court especially the Trust's ownership of the demised property, since the said Tenants have filed only one appeal, i.e. arising from O.S.6/78, without assailing identical conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78.
(2.)The uncontroverted facts are that the husband of the first Respondent/Tenants (namely, Kannaiya Chettiar along with another person Venkatarama Keddiar) the suit land on lease from Sethurama Chettiar on 1.3.1953 for a period of 12 years on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The Tenants were permitted to construct a cinema theatre on the suit land at their own cost, which they have done in the name and style of 'Raja Talkies', which is still in existence. In 1959 one of the partners died, resulting in the husband of Respondent No.1 assuming sole proprietorship of 'Raja Talkies'. On 8.11.1967 a fresh Registered Notaire Lease Deed was executed for a period of 15 years commencing from 1.1.1968 between the husband of Respondent No.1 and the Appellant Trust, Gangai Vinayagar Temple through its Trustee's President namely, Shri Sethurama Chettiar.
Consequent on the death of the husband of Respondent No.1, she continued as the tenant along with her children as legal representatives of her late husband. It is also not in dispute that the Trust sold the suit property to Sarvashri P.Lakshamanan, P.Vadivelu and P.Saibabha who were impleaded by the Tenants as Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S. 5/78. The Tenants were informed of this transaction on 14.10.1976, calling upon them to attorn to the new owners. The repercussion was that in 1976 itself, the Tenants filed O.S.5/78 (re-numbered) in which they had assailed the sale of the suit land on the predication that the legal formalities necessary for the transfer of trust property had not been adhered to as it was a Public Trust, and further that, subsequent to the aforementioned transaction, the Tenants (Plaintiffs in O.S.5/78) apprehended their dispossession therefrom at the hands of the Defendants, including Defendants 7 to 9 (hereinafter called 'Transferees'). The Prayers have been reproduced infra. In this suit, the Trust as well as the Transferees pleaded in their respective Written Statements that they had neither threatened nor harboured any intention to dispossess the Tenants without due process of law.
(3.)The sequel of this first salvo of litigation was the filing of two suits by the Trust, being O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78, claiming arrears of rent from the Tenants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 before us, in which the Transferees were not impleaded) pertaining to the period prior to the transfer of the suit lands by them to the Transferees. Despite the pleadings therein as mentioned above, O.S.5/78 came to be 'dismissed'. O.S.6/78 was partially decreed; whilst O.S.7/78 was dismissed on the ground that the alleged claim of arrears of rent in this suit was not tenable as the said land was part of and encompassed in the suit land which was the subject matter of O.S.6/78 and, accordingly, the claim was covered and subsumed therein. The Tenants have not filed any appeal in respect of O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78; and the Trust has not filed any appeal on the dismissal of their suit O.S.7/78. All three suits have been decided, after recording of common evidence, by a common Judgment passed on 6.11.1982 by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge at Pondicherry. Pursuant to this Judgment three different decrees have been drawn.
(2.)The uncontroverted facts are that the husband of the first Respondent/Tenants (namely, Kannaiya Chettiar along with another person Venkatarama Keddiar) the suit land on lease from Sethurama Chettiar on 1.3.1953 for a period of 12 years on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. The Tenants were permitted to construct a cinema theatre on the suit land at their own cost, which they have done in the name and style of 'Raja Talkies', which is still in existence. In 1959 one of the partners died, resulting in the husband of Respondent No.1 assuming sole proprietorship of 'Raja Talkies'. On 8.11.1967 a fresh Registered Notaire Lease Deed was executed for a period of 15 years commencing from 1.1.1968 between the husband of Respondent No.1 and the Appellant Trust, Gangai Vinayagar Temple through its Trustee's President namely, Shri Sethurama Chettiar.
Consequent on the death of the husband of Respondent No.1, she continued as the tenant along with her children as legal representatives of her late husband. It is also not in dispute that the Trust sold the suit property to Sarvashri P.Lakshamanan, P.Vadivelu and P.Saibabha who were impleaded by the Tenants as Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S. 5/78. The Tenants were informed of this transaction on 14.10.1976, calling upon them to attorn to the new owners. The repercussion was that in 1976 itself, the Tenants filed O.S.5/78 (re-numbered) in which they had assailed the sale of the suit land on the predication that the legal formalities necessary for the transfer of trust property had not been adhered to as it was a Public Trust, and further that, subsequent to the aforementioned transaction, the Tenants (Plaintiffs in O.S.5/78) apprehended their dispossession therefrom at the hands of the Defendants, including Defendants 7 to 9 (hereinafter called 'Transferees'). The Prayers have been reproduced infra. In this suit, the Trust as well as the Transferees pleaded in their respective Written Statements that they had neither threatened nor harboured any intention to dispossess the Tenants without due process of law.
(3.)The sequel of this first salvo of litigation was the filing of two suits by the Trust, being O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78, claiming arrears of rent from the Tenants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 before us, in which the Transferees were not impleaded) pertaining to the period prior to the transfer of the suit lands by them to the Transferees. Despite the pleadings therein as mentioned above, O.S.5/78 came to be 'dismissed'. O.S.6/78 was partially decreed; whilst O.S.7/78 was dismissed on the ground that the alleged claim of arrears of rent in this suit was not tenable as the said land was part of and encompassed in the suit land which was the subject matter of O.S.6/78 and, accordingly, the claim was covered and subsumed therein. The Tenants have not filed any appeal in respect of O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78; and the Trust has not filed any appeal on the dismissal of their suit O.S.7/78. All three suits have been decided, after recording of common evidence, by a common Judgment passed on 6.11.1982 by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge at Pondicherry. Pursuant to this Judgment three different decrees have been drawn.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.