The Supreme Court dismissed a suit filed by former students of a School seeking handing over of possession of school building and property to the Government.

The Appellant preferred the appeal before the Apex Court assailing the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court setting aside the judgment of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “As the previous suit was decided on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is bound by the terms of the decree.”

AOR Sahil Bhalaik represented the Appellant while Advocate D P Chaturvedi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The appellant had preferred a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Public Work Department and the State of Karnataka from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ater due contest, the suit was decreed in his favour. Another suit was filed by Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 who are former students of Government Higher Secondary School, now known as Government Junior College, Tumkur, along with others, in a representative capacity before the trial Court, seeking a declaration in favour of the Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.3 - State of Karnataka and for a direction to the appellant / Defendant No.1 to deliver possession of the suit property to the State.

The Trial Court partly dismissed and partly allowed the suit. It was held that the decree passed by the Munsif Court in the suit filed by Defendant No.1 was partly binding effect in respect of the relief of permanent injunction. Said decree was held to be not binding on Defendant No.3 or anybody interested as a rate paying citizens of the State of Karnataka including the Plaintiffs as the said suit was not for the relief of declarations. Defendant No.3 was declared as the rightful owner of the suit scheduled property and they were entitled to get the possession of the same from Defendant No.1.

The Regular Appeal filed by the appellant / Defendant before the First Appellate Court was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent No.1 / third plaintiff preferred a Regular Second Appeal. The High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. It also directed that the possession of the suit schedule property consisting of the school building operated by the Government and any vacant space in possession of Defendant No.1, be delivered to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / Defendant No.1 approached the Apex Court with the present Civil Appeal.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the background and the facts of the case, the Bench stated that the decree of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the appellant became final and conclusive with respect to the suit property. It was noticed that during the pendency of the earlier suit, the appellant filed an interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 praying to amend the plaint for declaration of title, which was allowed. However, he gave up the claim of declaration of title and pressed only for the relief of permanent injunction against the encroachment made by the State officials over the suit property and the same was granted in his favour in 1981.

In the present suit, from which the appeal arose, Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 claimed to be former students of the Government Junior College while the remaining Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.4 to 20 are citizens, rate payers or persons interested in protecting public property. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Government of Karnataka in the appeal proceedings between Sarvodaya High School and the Headmaster of the Government High School, that if the parties are interested in ascertaining their claims as to the ownership of the land, they may approach the Civil Courts for appropriate reliefs, the said plaintiffs preferred the present suit in a representative capacity seeking a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellant is not binding on the Respondent No.2 / State. It was observed by the Bench that Respondent No.2/State was bound by the terms of the decree as it had already attained finality.

“Further, as 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. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable”, it held.

The Bench noticed, “...it is evident that the Respondent No.2 / State did not claim any right, interest or title over the suit property and they did not adduce any concrete evidence to show that the suit property was in actual possession of the Government in the earlier round of litigations in O.S. No. 80/1978. As such, they cannot now be permitted to raise the same in the subsequent suit filed by the third parties, that too, in a representative capacity.”

However, the trial Court erroneously entertained the suit and partly decreed the same in favour of the plaintiffs. “Though the said decree was set aside by the First Appellate Court, the High Court decreed the suit as prayed for, by the judgment and order impugned in this appeal.In view of the reasons stated above, the suit from which the present appeal arises, is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we need not go into the other contentions raised by the parties”, the Bench ruled.

Thus, setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and dismissing the suit filed by Respondent No.1 and other plaintiffs, the Bench concluded, “However, we make it clear that we are not expressing 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.”

Cause Title: M/s. B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 214)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Sahil Bhalaik, Advocates Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Gulshan Jahan, Murshlin Ansari

Respondent: Advocates D P Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar Thakur, Abhay Choudhary M, Vivek Ram R, AOR Anuradha Mutatkar,AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Mythili S, M. Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Shiv Kumar, Vaishnavi

Click here to read/download Judgment




Supreme CourtJustice JB PardiwalaJustice R MahadevanInjunction

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.