DATE OF JUDGMENT:
23 September 2021
CORAM:
- Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud
- Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath
- Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
PARTIES:
Appellant- Jamia Masjid.
Respondent- Sri K V Rudrappa (Since Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.
SUBJECT
The Court in this judgement has observed that a suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC wherein the title of suit schedule property is contested, then the Court may have to decide if the scheme for administration and management belongs to the Trust. The persons interested would be barred by the principle of Res Judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue.
OVERVIEW
- This suit property, in this case is a Khazi Service Inam land which comes under the category of waqfs. It was entitled to Abdul Khuddus subject to the condition that he would perform his service as Khazi.
- In 1965, Abdul Khuddus filed a declaration with the Wakf Board for the registration of his suit schedule property as Wakf. No objection was raised to the registration of the property. It was then notified as a Wakf property under the Wakf Act 1954.
- In 1944, a person by the name of H.S. Gururaj Rao was granted a lease over a schedule suit property to run a cinema talkie. The Wakf Board instituted a suit against H.S. Gururajan and Abdul Khuddus for possession of the property and that it constitutes a Wakf.
- The suit was compromised after Abdul Khuddus was permitted to collect the rent from H S Guru Raja Rao. The State Wakf Board then took over the management of the property.
- Jamia Masjid Gubbi has approached the court for declaration that the Wakf Board is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants contented the issue of Res Judicata and that the case was already decided in an earlier suit.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
- Section 92 CPC: Entitle a person in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature.
- Section 11 CPC (Res Judicata): No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
- Under Section 6 of the Wakf Act 1954, if any dispute arises on a property declared as a Wakf property, a claim can be raised within one year of the publication of the notification.
- Rule 5 of the Wakf Rules- There is a prohibition on alienation unless approved by a two-thirds majority of the Wakf Board.
ISSUE
- Is the suit barred by the principle of Res Judicata?
- Who has the rightful title over the suit schedule property?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court noted that first case involved the management of Jamia Masjid. The second suit was for the declaration of the properties as Wakf properties.
- The matters that were decided in the former suit are not identical to those in the subsequent suit because the notification that declared the property as a Wakf was changed, which caused the former suit to be declared invalid.
- To solve the issue of representative suit under Section 92 of the CPC, the Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Bhagwandasji judgement in interpreting the ambit of a representative lawsuit.
- o The plaintiff can only approach reliefs that are applicable to the clauses in Section 92 CPC. For instance, if the plaintiff claims that the suit property belongs to a trust, it does not necessarily fall within the scope of reliefs given in the provision.
- o A determination of the title of the property is a concerned part for the final relief sought by the plaintiff. It acts ancillary to the main relief under Section 92.
- o If the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, then the title of the suit property will not be determined, since it would have no value to the final decision in the suit.
- The principles were formulated to apply to the facts of this case and the relief sought in the first lawsuit under Section 92 of the CPC was, as per the court, determination of scheme of management of the Masjid. Determination of the title of the suit property with respect to the mosque was ancillary to the main relief.
CONCLUSION
If the title is contested, then the Court may have to decide if the scheme for administration and management belongs to the Trust under representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC. Also,the persons interested would be barred by the principle of Res Judicata from instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue. The former suit was not adjudicated on the ground that Abdul Khuddus had absolute rights over the property. The court noted that there was prima facie finding that the suit property belonged to him.
The matters substantially in issue 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. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of the High Court.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Hope you enjoyed reading this judgment. Here are a few questions for you-
- What do you understand by Res Judicata?
- What does Section 92 of the CPC talk about?
