2018 (3) TMI 1994 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of suit - auction sale - principles of res-judicata - owners entitled for possession of the suit property - Plaintiffs suit is hit by Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure as contended in the written statement or not? - entitlement for compensatory costs - HELD THAT - The Trial Court and High Court have applied the settled legal position in reference to the decisions of this Court as noticed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The principle of res judicata as enshrined in Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is founded on the maxim Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa . In a recent decision in the case of NAGABHUSHANAMMAL (D) BY LRS. VERSUS C. CHANDIKESWARALINGAM 2016 (2) TMI 1285 - SUPREME COURT this Court observed thus The principle operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. It aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accords finality to an issue which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or their privies and was decided and has become final so that the parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation is put an end to and valuable time of the court is saved. The principle of res judicata applies on all fours to the present case as has been rightly held by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the suit property.
2. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.
3. Confirmation of auction sale and issuance of sale certificate.
4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Possession of the Suit Property:
The appellants, who are the plaintiffs, claimed ownership and sought possession of the suit property, asserting that their predecessor had deposited the due amount to the Income Tax Department and thus, the confirmation of the sale should not have occurred. They argued that the respondents' possession was litigious and did not confer any right to continue in possession of the property.

2. Applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata:
The trial court and the High Court both held that the suit was barred by res judicata. The courts traced the history of various proceedings and concluded that the issues regarding the confirmation of the auction sale and the issuance of the sale certificate had been previously litigated and decided. The courts applied the triple test for res judicata—identity of parties, cause of action, and subject matter—and found that all three were satisfied. The High Court emphasized that the appellants' predecessor had already agitated the auction sale confirmation before various forums, and the orders had become final, precluding re-litigation of the same issues.

3. Confirmation of Auction Sale and Issuance of Sale Certificate:
The appellants contended that the auction sale was not properly confirmed following the remand order by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. They argued that no fresh order of confirmation or sale certificate was issued after the remand. However, the courts found that the auction sale had been confirmed initially and the respondents' ancestor was put in possession. The subsequent proceedings, including the writ petitions and appeals, did not disturb this confirmation. The High Court noted that the Deputy Commissioner had dismissed the application for setting aside the sale for non-prosecution, and this order had attained finality.

4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act:
The appellants sought to invoke the Deputy Commissioner's discretion under Section 177 to set aside the auction sale. The High Court, however, held that the Deputy Commissioner's discretion could not be directed by the court and that no one had a right to demand the exercise of such discretion. The court referred to its previous decisions, which clarified that the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu power was to be exercised in the interest of justice and subject to conditions deemed proper by the authority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, dismissing the appeals. It held that the principle of res judicata applied, precluding the appellants from re-litigating the issues regarding the auction sale confirmation and possession of the suit property. The court emphasized that the appellants had already had the opportunity to challenge the auction sale in previous proceedings, and the orders had attained finality. The appeals were dismissed with costs, upholding the respondents' possession and ownership of the suit property.