Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 214
Judges: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Can former students of a government school file a suit in a representative capacity to protect the school’s property? This was the central question before the Supreme Court in the case of M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS vs. R N NADIGAR & ORS. The court addressed whether such a suit is maintainable, especially when there’s a prior decree on the same property. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute in Tumkur. Plaintiffs 1 to 4, claiming to be former students of Government Higher Secondary School (now Government Junior College, Tumkur), filed a suit in a representative capacity. They sought a declaration that a decree obtained by the first defendant (M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS) in O.S.No.80/1978 was not binding on the third defendant (State of Karnataka) and that the State was the rightful owner of the suit property.
The appellant, M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS, had earlier filed a suit (O.S.No.80/1978) for a permanent injunction against the Public Works Department and the State of Karnataka, which was decreed in their favor. The current suit (O.S.No.505/1989) was filed by the former students and others, seeking declaratory reliefs in favor of the State regarding the same property.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1919 | Government took over 2 acres 22 guntas from Mohamad Bokhari and 1 acre 10 guntas from Lankey due to unpaid revenue. |
| 1928 | Lankey’s son, Chikkanna, sold 15 guntas to Chowdhary Abdul Haq on November 29. |
| 1938 | Chowdhary Abdul Haq sold the land to Abdul Razak on July 18. |
| 1944 | The 15 guntas was converted for non-agricultural purposes and renumbered in the name of Abdul Razak. |
| 1959 | Legal heirs of Abdul Razak mortgaged the property to the appellant. |
| December 7, 1970 | The legal heirs of Abdul Razak sold the property to the appellant via a registered sale deed. |
| February 11, 1971 | Property registered in the name of the appellant. |
| 1972 | Tahsildar passed cancellation order on May 11 and rectified the index of lands on June 16. |
| June 25, 1973 | Tahsildar issued a copy restoring the measurement of 6 acres 30 guntas in the name of Town Extension. |
| 1978 | Appellant filed O.S. No. 80/1978 for permanent injunction. |
| November 30, 1981 | Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 80/1978 in favor of the appellant. |
| April 7, 1984 | First Appellate Court dismissed R.A.No.2/82 filed by the State. |
| February 11, 1985 | High Court dismissed RSA No.717/1984 filed by the State. |
| 1985 | The present suit came to be filed. |
| 1989 | Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.505/1989 seeking declaration in favor of the State. |
| February 28, 2007 | Trial Court partly dismissed and partly allowed O.S. No. 505/1989. |
| August 31, 2010 | First Appellate Court allowed R.A.No.478 of 2009 and set aside the trial court’s decree. |
| October 1, 2021 | High Court allowed R.S.A.No.2823 of 2010, setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decreeing the suit. |
| December 16, 2022 | Supreme Court granted an order of status quo. |
| February 14, 2025 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment, setting aside the judgments and decrees/orders passed by the Courts below and dismissing the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 and other plaintiffs. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court partly dismissed and partly allowed the suit on February 28, 2007, ruling that the decree in O.S. No. 80/78 was partly binding and that Defendant No. 3 was the rightful owner. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision on August 31, 2010. The High Court then set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment on October 1, 2021, and decreed the suit as prayed for, directing the appellant to deliver possession of the property to the government.
Legal Framework
The case involves considerations of:
- Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act: The earlier suit filed by the appellant was for permanent injunction under this section.
- Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity under this provision.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (M/S. B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONS):
- The decree of permanent injunction obtained in O.S.No.80 of 1978 is conclusive and binding.
- The plaintiffs lack locus standi to maintain the present suit.
- The suit is barred by limitation as the appellant has been in possession since 1970.
- The issue of title was decided in favor of the appellant in the earlier suit, thus res judicata applies.
- There was no document to prove the alleged forfeiture of the land.
- The appellant has perfected his title by adverse possession.
Respondents’ Arguments (R N NADIGAR & ORS. and State of Karnataka):
- The plaintiffs have locus standi as they are interested in preserving the institution’s property.
- The earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, with no issue of title involved.
- The suit property was forfeited in 1919 due to non-payment of land revenue.
- The reliefs sought in the earlier and present suits are different, and res judicata does not apply.
- The present suit was filed in a representative capacity and has a wider scope.
Arguments Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Locus Standi | ✓ Plaintiffs have no locus standi as they were not parties to the earlier suit. | ✓ Plaintiffs have locus standi as former students interested in preserving the institution’s property. |
| Res Judicata | ✓ The issue of title was decided in the earlier suit, thus res judicata applies. | ✓ The earlier suit was only for permanent injunction, with no issue of title involved; thus, res judicata does not apply. |
| Limitation | ✓ The suit is barred by limitation as the appellant has been in possession since 1970. | ✓ The present suit was filed in the interest of the public and the institution, so delay should not be a barrier. |
| Forfeiture | ✓ There was no document to prove the alleged forfeiture of the land. | ✓ The suit property was forfeited in 1919 due to non-payment of land revenue. |
| Nature of Suit | ✓ The earlier suit filed by the appellant was for permanent injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, whereas, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC in a representative capacity had a wider scope than an ordinary suit and hence, the same was maintainable before the trial Court. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable. | The Court held that the suit is not maintainable. | The plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit, and the State is bound by the previous decree. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit in a representative capacity. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
- Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and others [(1990) 1 SCC 266]: This case was cited by the respondents to argue that members of a community can maintain a suit in a representative capacity for preserving community property.
- Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and others [(2005) 6 SCC 202]: This case was relied upon by the appellant to argue that the issue of title decided in the earlier suit operates as res judicata.
- Anathulla Sudhakar v. P.Bucchi Reddy by LRs and others [(2008) 4 SCC 59]: This case was cited by the respondents to argue that the decree of injunction would not operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaratory reliefs.
- Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act
- Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and others [(1990) 1 SCC 266] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished |
| Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and others [(2005) 6 SCC 202] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished |
| Anathulla Sudhakar v. P.Bucchi Reddy by LRs and others [(2008) 4 SCC 59] | Supreme Court of India | Cited |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs have locus standi as former students interested in preserving the institution’s property. | Rejected. The Court held that as the Plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the previous suit and they made no attempt to implead themselves therein, having complete knowledge of the earlier round of litigations between the appellant and the State, they have no locus standi to file the present suit, specially in a representative capacity, wherein they are attempting to obtain reliefs for respondent No.2/State, which itself is barred from encroaching the suit property. |
| The issue of title was decided in the earlier suit, thus res judicata applies. | The Court did not express any opinion on the issue of title of the property and it is for the parties to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief by adducing necessary oral and documentary evidence. |
| The suit is barred by limitation as the appellant has been in possession since 1970. | The Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the parties. |
| There was no document to prove the alleged forfeiture of the land. | The Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the parties. |
| The earlier suit filed by the appellant was for permanent injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, whereas, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC in a representative capacity had a wider scope than an ordinary suit and hence, the same was maintainable before the trial Court. | Rejected. The Court held that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and others [(1990) 1 SCC 266]: The court distinguished this case, emphasizing that the plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties to the earlier suit and had not attempted to implead themselves.
- Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and others [(2005) 6 SCC 202]: The court distinguished this case.
- Anathulla Sudhakar v. P.Bucchi Reddy by LRs and others [(2008) 4 SCC 59]: The court cited this case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Maintainability of the Suit: The court emphasized that the plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit and had not attempted to implead themselves, thus lacking locus standi.
- Previous Decree: The court noted that the State was bound by the previous decree in favor of the appellant.
- Representative Capacity: The court questioned the maintainability of the suit in a representative capacity, especially when the State itself was barred from encroaching on the property.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Maintainability of the Suit | 40% |
| Previous Decree | 35% |
| Representative Capacity | 25% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (Consideration of legal principles) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
ISSUE: Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and decrees/orders passed by the Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 and other plaintiffs. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the issue of title, allowing parties to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief.
The court stated:
“…the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 claim to b e former students of the Government High er Secondary S chool now known as Government J unior C ollege , Tumkur, while the remaining Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.4 to 20 are citizens , rate payers or persons interested in protecting public property.”
“As the previous suit was decided on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is bound by the terms of the decree.”
“Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.”
Key Takeaways
- Former students or concerned citizens cannot maintain a suit in a representative capacity if they were not parties in previous suits concerning the same property.
- A state government is bound by the decrees of previous suits and cannot circumvent them through third-party suits.
- The judgment clarifies the importance of locus standi in property disputes involving public interest.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a suit filed by individuals in a representative capacity is not maintainable if the same issue has been previously decided and the state is bound by the decree in the previous suit. This reaffirms the principle of res judicata and the importance of locus standi in legal proceedings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit filed by the former students and others, holding that the suit was not maintainable due to the plaintiffs lacking locus standi and the State being bound by the previous decree. The court emphasized that the parties could approach a competent civil court to resolve the issue of title.