Plaintiffs' Representative Suit Dismissed as Not Maintainable; Earlier Injunction Decree Held Final and Binding

A bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and J.B. Pardiwala heard the civil appeal arising from a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's October 1, 2021 judgment which had set aside an earlier appellate order and decreed a representative suit seeking declaration and possession of a 15-gunta portion of land said to belong to the State and used for a government school. The appeal was filed by M/s B N Padmanabhaiah & Sons, the decree-holder in an earlier suit for permanent injunction.

The Supreme Court held that the suit filed in O.S. No.505 of 1989 by former students and other citizens in a representative capacity was not maintainable and dismissed it, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below which had decreed the suit. The Court emphasised that the earlier suit (O.S. No.80 of 1978) between the appellant and the State, which resulted in a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the appellant and became final after dismissal of appeals, bound the State and rendered the subsequent representative action impermissible. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “As the previous suit was decided on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is bound by the terms of the decree. 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.” The Court also stated that “we are not expressing any opinion on the issue of title of the property” and left parties free to approach competent civil courts on title by adducing evidence.

Background The dispute concerned 15 guntas out of Survey No.81/1 at Tumkur, a parcel which the State and Government High School contended formed part of lands resumed by government for non-payment of land revenue in 1919 and was in government possession as school compound. The appellant traced title through registered sale deeds culminating in a 1970 purchase and had obtained a decree for permanent injunction in O.S. No.80 of 1978 restraining the State and Public Works Department from interfering with his possession; that decree survived appellate challenges and became final. In 1989 former students and others filed O.S. No.505/1989 in a representative capacity seeking a declaration that the State was rightful owner and that the injunction decree was not binding on the State; they sought delivery of possession to the Government. The trial court partly decreed the representative suit, the first appellate court set that judgment aside in favour of the appellant, and the High Court thereafter allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

At the Supreme Court, the appellant argued res judicata and lack of locus, and contended also that limitation and adverse possession supported his title. The respondents relied on historical forfeiture/resumption records and on the representative nature of their suit (Order 1 Rule 8 CPC), as well as precedents on community representation and declaration suits. The Supreme Court, after examining evidence and procedural history, concluded that because the State had litigated and lost in the earlier suit and the decree had attained finality, third parties could not maintain a representative suit to obtain reliefs for the State. The Court therefore dismissed the present suit as not maintainable, without adjudicating title, and directed that parties may pursue title claims before appropriate civil courts. The appeal was disposed of with parties to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23115 of 2022) Case Title: M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors. Appearances: (List advocates if available, for both sides using the format) For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]