Section 92 CPC- Judgment In Representative Suit Binds All Parties Interested In The Trust: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit.

Such 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 bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed.

The court added that while deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust.

In this case, Jamia Masjid Gubbi filed a suit seeking inter alia a declaration that the State Wakf Board is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The Defendants, in their written statement, raised the issue of Res Judicata. They contended that the issue is already decided in earlier suits.

The first suit was filed by the members of the mosque known as Jamayat Masjid in which Abdul Khuddus (the predecessor of Defendants 5-9) was a party. In the said suit, the District Judge by a judgment dated 31 March 1954 declared the suit schedule property to be the personal property of Abdul Khuddus. The second suit was instituted by the Mysore Board of Wakf against Abdul Khuddus seeking a declaration that the suit property is a wakf and for possession of the suit property. However, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise petition filed by the parties and therefore, the Wakf Board gave up its claim in respect of the suit schedule property.  The third suit was instituted by the Karnataka Board of Wakf seeking an injunction restraining the defendants (the heirs of Abdul Khuddus) from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property. This suit was withdrawn by the plaintiff

The Trial Court heard the parties by taking issue of Res Judicata as a preliminary issue. It held that the suit is barred by Res Judicata. This order was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

In appeal, the apex court bench reversed these findings and noted as follows:

1. Since the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) was filed by members interested in the Jamia Masjid and the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise (OS 149 of 1998) was filed by the President of Jamia Masjid, the formulation in (iii) above is satisfied.There was no adjudication in the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) on whether Abdul Khuddus had absolute title to the suit property. There was only a prima facie determination that Items 2 and 3 of the schedule of properties to the first suit belonged to Abdul Khuddus. The matters substantially in issue in OS 92 of 1950-51, 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. Therefore, OS 149 of 1998 is not barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the first suit;
2. As regards second suit, while a compromise decree in a prior suit will not bar a subsequent suit by virtue of res judicata, the subsequent suit could be barred by estoppel by conduct. However, neither the compromise petition dated 27 October 1969 nor the final decree in the second suit dated 27 October 1969 indicate that a compromise on the title to the suit property was arrived at. The compromise was restricted to the issue of the erstwhile lessee handing over possession of the suit property at the end of the lease;
3. The third suit (OS 100/1983) was a suit for an injunction simpliciter. The third suit was withdrawn after the suit out of which the instant proceeding arises was filed for seeking a substantive declaration and an injunction. No adjudication on the rights of the parties was made in the third suit

Ambit of a representative suit under section 92 CPC:

The court referred to Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibha which had explained the ambit of a representative suit under section 92 CPC:

(i) The plaintiff can only seek reliefs that fall under any of the clauses in section 92 CPC. A declaration that the suit property belongs to the trust, does not fall under the scope of any of the reliefs enumerated in section 92 CPC and is outside the scope of the provision;

(ii) Merely because the defendant denies the title of the trust over the suit property, the jurisdiction of the court cannot be ousted;

(iii)When the title of the trust is contested, a determination of the title of the suit property is necessary for the purpose of adjudication on the final relief, and thus it can be made ancillary to the main relief if the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought under Section 92 CPC; and

(iv)If the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, then in that case no determination on the title of the suit property can be made since it would be inconsequential to the final decision in the suit.

 Representative Suit and Res judicata

On the applicability of Res Judicata, the court referred to judgments in Raje Anandrao v. Shamrao, Ahmad Adam Sait v. M E Makhri, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee v. Mahant Harnam Singh C. (Dead) M.N. Singh and R. Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and observed:

It is evident that a representative suit is binding on all the interested parties. Therefore, the judgment of the court in the first suit would be binding on Jamia Masjid and would preclude it from instituting another suit on the same issue if it has been conclusively decided. It is now to be analysed if the substantive issue in the instant suit was conclusively decided in the first suit.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment