Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the right to possession of the suit property of a math at Jamkhandi, claimed by respondent No.1 as validly appointed Padadayya (Mathadhipati). The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit on 4 February 1954 seeking possession of the suit property, asserting that he had been duly installed as Padadayya on 30 January 1944 as a successor to Virupakshayya I, who had died in 1903. He contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had not been duly installed as Padadayyas and that Shivalingayya, whom defendant No.1 claimed had been installed as Padadayya in 1935 and had nominated him in 1943, was also not validly installed. The parties were in agreement that if Shivalingayya had been validly nominated and installed as Padadayya, the plaintiff could not succeed. This very issue had been decided in favour of Shivalingayya by the Privy Council of Jamkhandi State in an earlier litigation begun by one Andanayya in 1934, to which the present plaintiff was not a party, but the plaintiff claimed that Andanayya had installed him as Padadayya in 1944. The Civil Judge decided the issue of validity of Shivalingayya's nomination and installation against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, and the High Court upheld that view. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff was placed between two horns of a bull: if the suit was regarded as one for possession simpliciter, it was hit by Section 50 read with Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, because no consent of the Charity Commissioner had been obtained; if the suit was treated as a declaration of the status of Padadayya with consequential relief of possession, it was hopelessly barred by limitation, as the declaration sought related to succession after Virupakshayya's death in 1903 and the suit was filed only in 1954. The respondent's counsel argued that clause (ii) of Section 50 applied only when recovery of possession was sought from a person holding adversely to the public trust, relying on Gollaleshwar Dev v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math, (1985) Suppl.3 SCR 646. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that clause (ii) clearly stated recovery of possession 'from any person' and was not limited to adverse holders, as the earlier case dealt with recovery from an adverse possessor but did not restrict the scope of the section. The court further held that although res judicata under Explanation VI of Section 11 CPC did not apply because the present plaintiff was not a party to the earlier proceeding and Andanayya had claimed as Charanti rather than as Padadayya, the earlier Privy Council decision was definitely a relevant circumstance under Section 42 of the Evidence Act. The High Court had merely referred to the earlier decision without examining whether law permitted a contrary view on the same issue. The court emphasized that the issue had been finally determined at the highest level and could not be re-examined. The appellants/defendants were noted to have been wrongly advised in leading fresh evidence de novo rather than relying on the Privy Council decision. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not take a stand that Shivalingayya's nomination and installation as Padadayya were invalid, which would render the entire exercise futile. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Public Trusts - Suits Relating to Public Trusts - Section 50(ii) and Section 51 of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Statutory Consent Mandatory - Recovery of possession from any person, including a person not holding adversely to the public trust, requires compliance with Sections 50 and 51 - The suit for possession of math property was filed without the consent of the Charity Commissioner and was therefore barred - Held that Section 50(ii) clearly provided for recovery of possession from any person and was not limited to recovery from a person holding adversely to the public trust, and the suit was hit by Sections 50 and 51 (Paras 4-7). B) Limitation - Suit for Declaration with Consequential Relief - Limitation Act, 1963 - Bar of Limitation - If the suit was treated as one for declaration of status as Padadayya with consequential relief of possession, it was barred by limitation because the declaration sought related to succession after Virupakshayya died in 1903 and the suit was filed only in 1954 - The court observed that the plaintiff was placed between two horns of the bull: either the suit was for possession and barred under Sections 50 and 51, or it was for declaration and hopelessly barred by limitation - Held that the suit could not avoid limitation by changing its nature (Paras 3, 8, 12). C) Res Judicata - Constructive Res Judicata - Section 11 Explanation VI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Earlier Privy Council Decision Not Res Judicata - The earlier Privy Council litigation begun by Andanayya in 1934 determined that Shivalingayya was duly nominated and installed as Padadayya, but the present plaintiff was not a party to that proceeding and Andanayya had claimed possession as Charanti, not as Padadayya - Though the foundation of Andanayya's case was the same alleged infirmity in Shivalingayya's nomination and installation, res judicata had no application because the present plaintiff was not a party and the earlier plaintiff had not claimed possession as Padadayya but as Charanti - Held that notwithstanding Explanation VI of Section 11 CPC, res judicata did not bar the present suit, but the earlier decision remained relevant (Para 9). D) Evidence - Relevancy of Previous Judgments - Section 42 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Earlier Privy Council Decision as Relevant Circumstance - The earlier Privy Council judgment was not binding as res judicata but was a relevant circumstance to be taken note of under Section 42 of the Evidence Act - The High Court merely referred to the earlier decision without examining whether law permitted a contrary view on the self-same issue - Held that the issue having been finally determined at the highest level, the same could not have been re-examined, and the contrary conclusion in favour of the plaintiff did not deserve to be confirmed (Paras 10-11). E) Precedent - Binding Effect of Privy Council Decision - Judicial Discipline - Privy Council of Jamkhandi State - The Privy Council of Jamkhandi State had territorial jurisdiction over the suit property and had held that Shivalingayya was duly nominated and installed as Padadayya - The Civil Judge and High Court took a contrary view, which was a piquant situation that should not have been allowed - Held that the plaintiff could not take a stand that Shivalingayya's nomination and installation were invalid, as this would render the entire exercise futile, and the appeal was allowed with the suit dismissed (Paras 1, 9-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for possession of math property filed by respondent No.1 as validly appointed Padadayya was barred under Section 50 read with Section 51 of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950; Whether the suit if treated as one for declaration with consequential relief of possession was barred by limitation; Whether the earlier Privy Council decision on validity of Shivalingayya's nomination and installation as Padadayya could be re-examined despite not operating as res judicata
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.1. The court made no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Suit for possession of public trust property must comply with Sections 50 and 51 of Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- Clause (ii) of Section 50 includes recovery of possession from any person
- not only from a person holding adversely to public trust
- A suit framed as declaration with consequential relief of possession is barred by limitation if filed beyond prescribed period
- Earlier Privy Council decision determining validity of nomination and installation of Padadayya is relevant under Section 42 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Res judicata under Section 11 CPC with Explanation VI is not applicable because plaintiff was not a party to earlier proceeding
- High Court cannot re-examine an issue finally determined at the highest level
