SRI LANKAPPA & ORS. versus KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION & ORS.

The suit of the plaintiff is hereby rejected as not maintainable.”

p. 527, margin G

9. KIC appealed, contending that the rejection of its plaint in KIC Suit-II was erroneous. The High Court set aside the order rejecting the plaint, and held that in the circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the trial court to issue summons, and its suo motu determination on the maintainability of the suit before such issuance was erroneous. The impugned judgment also held that it was open to a court to reject the plaint at any stage.

pp. 527–528, margin G

Arguments Advanced

p. 528, margin A

10. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel, urged that the High Court fell into error, in overlooking the fact that the subject matter of KIC Suit-II was barred by res judicata as the issues in it were directly and substantially in issue in both the 1995 Suit and KIC Suit-I. The decision in that suit had attained finality before this Court in Civil Appeal No.10086/2010. Furthermore, the High Court erred in ignoring that in terms of the mandate of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter called “CPC”), KIC, in KIC Suit-I was bound to include the whole claim which it was entitled to make in respect of the cause of action and if it omitted tosue in respect of, or intentionally relinquished, any portion of its claim, it could not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. It was argued that being party to the 1995 Suit, KIC was aware of its claim ownership over the Suit Schedule Property. Therefore, the omission on KIC’s part in claiming relief of declaration of ownership in its earlier suit (i.e., KIC Suit-I) which was tagged with the 1995 Suit, statutorily barred the subsequent suit (i.e., KIC Suit-II) for declaration of title under Order II Rule 2(2) CPC.

p. 528, margin B

11. Learned senior counsel argued that the High Court overlooked that since the grant issued by the Government of Karnataka was held to be non-est by the common judgment of the trial court (dated 31.01.1998) in the 1995 Suit and KIC Suit I, and that such finding was modified by the High Court in RSA No. 236/1999 – to the effect that the grant in favour of Muniswamappa is deemed to have been cancelled – KIC lacked locus standi to file a suit for declaration on the basis of such grant. Learned senior counsel also drew attention of this Court to the High Court’s order in RP No. 493/ 2005 where it confirmed that the grant as claimed by KIC was deemed to have been cancelled, thereby stripping it off of any right to title to the Suit Schedule Property.

p. 528, margin E

12. Learned senior counsel relied on the decision of this Court in T. Aravindandam and Others v T. V. Satyapal & Anr where this Court upheld the jurisdiction of trial courts under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in rejecting frivolous and vexatious suits. Reliance was also placed on Ramrameshwari Devi and Others v Nirmala Devi& Ors where it was held that the trial court ought not to have framed an issue on a point which had been finally determined up to this Court, and further held that unless the wrongdoers were denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control such litigations.

pp. 528–529, margin G

13. Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the respondents herein, urged that KIC Suit-II was not in abuse of the process of any court of law. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, an application was filed before this Court. That application was declined. KIC Suit- I was a suit for bare injunction and the title to the Suit Schedule Property was not considered. Therefore, the subsequentsuit (i.e., KIC Suit-II) seeking title and possession was not barred.

p. 529, margin B

14. Learned senior counsel contended that the civil court had to mandatorily issue summons tothe respondents; and that maintainability of the suit could only be considered after such issuance, when it was contested by the respondents. However, in this case, before issuance of the summons to the respondents, the trial court suo moto passed determination on maintainability of the suit and rejected it as not maintainable. That order was contrary to law. Consequently, the High Court was justified in setting it aside.

p. 529, margin C

15. Ms. Suri relied on the judgment of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy to urge that KIC Suit-I was one for injunction. There was no occasion for KIC to claim ownership or title to the Suit Schedule Property. In these circumstances, KIC Suit-II claiming title and possession was maintainable. She also relied on Alka Gupta v Narendr Kumar Gupta to say that the courts should not summarily reject a plaint, on the ground that the judgment in an earlier suit, barred the later one.

p. 529, margin E

Analysis

p. 529, margin F

16. It is apparent from the above facts that the two suits filed earlier – the 1995 Suit and KIC Suit-I – culminated in a decision favourable to the appellants herein, as KIC’s suit was dismissed. KIC and the other respondents appealed against the decision in the present appellant’s suit; that appeal was also dismissed. The second appeal preferred by the parties i.e., RSA No. 236/1999 was dismissed on 16.06.2005. The High Court pertinently observed and held that the appellants herein were in possession of the Suit Schedule Property and rightly injuncted the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, holding further that there was deemed cancellation of the grant of land granted in favour of the respondents herein as due procedure had not been followed.

pp. 529–530, margin G

17. These findings were challenged in a suit filed by the appellants, which claimed that they had absolute title to the property. No doubt, KIC’s suit claimed injunction; its dismissal, if that were the only proceeding, would not have precluded a subsequent suit, claiming title. However, the fact here is that KIC was a respondent in the suit filed by the appellant (i.e., the 1995 Suit) which expressly sought the relief of declaration that the appellant was the absolute owner. It was in such a context that the question of ‘ownership’, which was directly in issue, in a proceeding, i.e., a suit, filed before a competent court, was decided. That decision ruled out KIC’s ownership, holding that there was “deemed cancellation of the grant of land” before the High Court. All these facts were disclosed by KIC in the suit filed after this Court dismissed its civil appeal, thus rendering the judgment in the second appeal final. In these circumstances, the issue which remains is whether the trial court wrongly rejected KIC Suit-II, as found by the impugned judgment.

p. 530, margin B

18. In Anathula Sudhakar, this Court outlined various situations in which a person claiming possession or injunction can claim relief. They are set out below:

p. 530, margin E

“21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under: (a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202]). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”

pp. 530–532, margin F

19. In the present case, KIC no doubt sought only a permanent injunction in its first suit. However, it is a fact of equal importance that the appellants-herein consistently agitated KIC’s title. KIC was a party to those proceedings. All the courts concurrently held that the grant, on which KIC based its possession, was deemed to be cancelled. Therefore, KIC could, by no procedure known to law, claim in another suit, that it was the absolute owner by virtue of the self-same grant, which was deemed to have been cancelled. The trial court therefore cannot be faulted with for holding that the question of title was directly in issue in the previous proceedings, and merely because it resulted in findings adverse to KIC, it could not escape being bound by those findings.

p. 532, margin A

20. It is noticeable that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, has considered Vithalbhai (P) Ltd., v Union Bank of India where it has been held that a plaint can be rejected at any stage. Furthermore, it has also been ruled in M. Nagabhushana v State of Karnataka & Others that the principle of res judicata is fundamental to the judicial system. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment (in holding that despite the fact that in the previous proceedings the issue of title stood concluded, the trail court had to proceed with the suit) is clearly in error.

p. 532, margin C

21. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside; the appeal is allowed, without order on costs.

p. 532, margin E