Will Findings On Title In Suit Of Injunction Simpliciter Operate As Res Judicata In Subsequent Suit?: Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which affirmed the Common Judgment of the Sessions Court.
The Supreme Court observed that where a finding on an issue of title is not necessary for deciding the question of possession and the grant of an injunction, or where no issue on title has been framed to decide a suit for injunction, any observation or decision on title would be incidental and collateral and will not operate as res judicata.
The Court observed thus in Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court which affirmed the Common Judgment of the Sessions Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “Where a finding on an issue of title is not necessary for deciding the question of possession and the grant of an injunction, or where no issue on title has been framed to decide a suit for injunction, any observation or decision on title would be incidental and collateral and will not operate as res judicata. However, findings on an issue of title in an earlier suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit where the question of title is directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction.”
The Bench elucidated that where the question of title is “directly and substantially” in issue in a Suit for injunction, and where a finding on an issue of title is necessary for granting the injunction, with a specific issue on title raised and framed, a specific prayer for a declaration of title is not necessary.
AOR Farhat Jahan Rehmani appeared on behalf of the Appellants while AOR Mahesh Thakur appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
In this case, the dispute arose from a common claim put forward by the Appellants and the answering Respondent on a property. The original owner developed the land in the form of individual plots and sold the same for consideration to various persons and the suit property was one of those plots. As per the Appellants, the suit property was sold by the original owner for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,250/- by executing an irrevocable Power of Attorney (POA) and an unregistered agreement to sell. The POA was duly notarized and thereafter the original owner who was the executant of the POA, died. Subsequently, the holder of POA executed a registered sale deed with respect to the suit property in favour of her son that is the Appellant No. 2 in exchange of sale consideration of Rs. 84,000/-. Several years after the death of the original owner his legal heirs through a registered sale deed, sold the same suit property to the Respondent No. 7 for Rs. 76,000/- and then the same was sold to the Respondent No. 8 vide another sale deed for Rs. 90,000/-.
Then the Respondent No. 8 executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter i.e., the answering Respondent. As per the Appellants, the father of the Appellant No. 2 visited the property and to his shock, he found strangers in possession of the same. Therefore, he lodged a Police Complaint but the Police closed the matter saying that the dispute was civil in nature. Thereafter, the answering Respondent filed a Suit for permanent injunction against the Appellant No. 2 or anyone else from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Following this, the Appellant No. 2 also filed a Suit against the legal heirs of the original owner, subsequent purchasers, and the answering Respondent. The Trial Court decreed the Suit filed by the Respondent and granted permanent injunction in her favour. This was challenged and the High Court affirmed the same and resultantly, the Appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, reiterated, “… it is settled that power of attorney is a creation of an agency by which the grantor/donor/executant authorizes the grantee/donee/holder/attorney to do the acts specified on his behalf, which will be binding on the executant as if the acts were done by him.”
The Court further noted that a mere use of the word ‘irrevocable’ in a POA does not make the same irrevocable and if the POA is not coupled with interest, no extraneous expression can make it irrevocable. It added that at the same time, even if there is no expression to the effect that the POA is irrevocable but the reading of the document indicates that it is a POA coupled with interest, it would be irrevocable.
“It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does not confer ownership right or title”, it also reiterated.
The Court said that a second suit would be barred when facts regarding title have been pleaded and decided by the Trial Court. It enunciated that where a finding on title is necessary for granting an injunction and has been substantially dealt with by the Trial Court in a suit for injunction, a direct and specific prayer for a declaration of title is not a necessity.
“… no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals.
Cause Title- M.S. Ananthamurthy & Anr. v. J. Manjula Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 273)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Farhat Jahan Rehmani and Advocate Radhakrishna S Hegde.
Respondents: AOR Mahesh Thakur, Advocates Mustafa Sajad, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, and Geetanjali Bedi.
