Andanur Kalamma and Ors. vs Gangamma (Dead) by L.Rs.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 March 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 423-424 of 2018

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar

Citation

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 177 : 2018 INSC 204

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

s.11 – Res judicata – Auction sale of property in question confirmed in favour of respondents – Challenged by appellants in a writ petition – High Court dismissed the petition, however, observed that Deputy Commissioner could exercise his suo motu power to set aside the auction sale as provided in terms of s.177 of Mysore Land Revenue Act – In writ appeal High Court held that the Court could not have directed the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the discretion – Thereafter, revision petition in respect of application filed by appellants for invoking discretion of Deputy Commissioner to set aside the auction, was made subject matter of another writ petition – The issue of tenability of the application u/s. 177 was negated by High Court and further affirmed in writ appeal – Subsequent thereto, present suit for declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property – Dismissed by trial court as well as High Court in appeal, on the ground of principles of res judicata – On appeal, held: The entire issue with regard to the confirmation of auction sale was the subject matter between the same parties in respect of same land and including same cause of action – Therefore, appellants were rightly non-suited being hit by the principles of res judicata – Principles of res judicata.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: The principle of res judicata as enshrined in Section

11 of CPC, is founded on the maxim “Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa”. In the present case, the entire issue with regard to the confirmation of the auction sale and the sale certificate issued in favour of the predecessor of the respondents, was the subject matter before the High Court between the same parties in respect of the same land and including the cause of action. On that finding, the Trial Court as well as the High Court rightly non-suited the appellants by dismissing the suit filed by them for declaration of ownership and possession, being hit by the principles of res judicata. The principle applies on all fours to the present case. [Paras 27 and 28] [193-B-D] Nagabhushanammal v.. C. Chandikeswaralingam

(2016) 4 SCC 434 - relied on.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 respo

View Subscription Plans →