M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONSversusR N NADIGAR & ORS.

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1876 : 2025 INSC 214

                  M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons
                                 v.
                         R N Nadigar & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2025)
                               14 February 2025
              [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether earlier decrees obtained by the appellant for permanent
       injunction foreclosed re-litigation of the dispute under the doctrine
       of res judicata and whether declaratory relief could be granted in
       favour of the State through a suit instituted by third parties, when
       the State had failed in earlier litigation.

                                   Headnotes†
       C.P.C, 1908 – Parties to the suit decided on merit and attained
       finality are bound by the terms of the decree – In representative
       suit, third party having complete knowledge of the previous
       litigation has no locus standi to file another suit on same
       subject matter:
       Held: Neither the plaintiffs in the present suit nor the Government
       High School, were made parties to the earlier suit filed by the
       appellant which was solely between the appellant and the State,
       only for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit
       property – The decree granted in O.S.No.80 of 1978 in favour of
       the appellant was challenged by the State before the appellate
       courts, but ended in dismissal – As the previous suit was decided
       on merits and has attained finality, Respondent No.2/State is
       bound by the terms of the decree – 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, especially 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. [Para 17]


* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1877

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


     C.P.C, 1908 – When a party to the suit did not claim any right,
     interest, or title over suit property and did not adduce any
     concrete evidence to show the actual possession, it cannot
     be permitted to raise the same in subsequent suit filed by the
     third party in representative capacity:
     Held: 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 – 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 – 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. [Para 18]

                              Case Law Cited
     Annaimuthu Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and Others [2005]
     Supp. 1 SCR 549 : (2005) 6 SCC 202; Anathula Sudhakar v.
     P. Bucchi Reddy by LRs and Others [2008] 5 SCR 331 : (2008)
     4 SCC 594; Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and Others [1989] Supp. 2
     SCR 356 : (1990) 1 SCC 266 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Specific Relief Act, 1963.

                             List of Keywords
     Representative Suit; Locus Standi; Res Judicata; Declaratory Relief;
     Judicial Finality; Government Land; Permanent Injunction; Civil
     Appeal; Collateral Attack; Public Interest Litigation; Possession;
     Ownership Dispute; Land Forfeiture; Title Dispute.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2021 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RSA No.2823 of 2010
1878                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


                                     Appearances for Parties
       Tushar Giri, Sahil Bhalaik, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora,
       Shivam Mishra, Gowtham Polanki, Gulshan Jahan, Advs. for the
       Appellants.
       S N Bhat, Sr. Adv., D P Chaturvedi, Abhay Choudhary M, Vivek
       Ram R, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, V. N. Raghupathy, Vishwanath
       P. Allannavar, Ms. Mythili S, Md. Apzal Ansari, Advs. for the
       Respondents.

                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                Judgment

       R. Mahadevan, J.

       Leave granted.
2.     The appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment
       and final order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the High Court of
       Karnataka at Bengaluru1 in R.S.A.No.2823 of 2010 thereby setting
       aside the judgment and decree passed by the Presiding Officer,
       Fast Track Court-II, Tumkur2 on 31.08.2010 in R.A.No.478/2009
       (Old R.A.No.67/2007) and decreeing the suit in O.S. No. 505 of
       1989 filed by the plaintiffs before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior
       Division), Tumkur3.
3.     The Respondent No.1 is the third plaintiff; the appellant herein is the
       first defendant; and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Defendant
       Nos.3 and 2 in the suit.
4.     The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.505/1989 was filed by the 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, praying
       for the following reliefs:
               a) For a declaration that the decree obtained by the 1st
               defendant in O.S.No.80/1978 on the file of the Munsif


1    Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
2    Hereinafter referred to as “the First Appellate Court”
3    Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             1879

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


           Court, Tumkur is not binding on the 3rd defendant or
           anybody interested as a rate paying citizen of the State
           of Karnataka including the plaintiffs.
           b) For further declaring that the 3rd defendant is the rightful
           owner of the Suit property.
           c) For a direction to the 1 st defendant to deliver the
           possession of the Suit property to the Government / 3rd
           defendant;
           d) For a consequential injunction restraining the 1st
           defendant from interfering with the possession of the 3rd
           defendant; and
           (e) For costs and such other reliefs.
     Vide order dated 24.01.1994, at the instance of the plaintiffs,
     amendment was ordered and clause (d) of the prayer made in the
     suit was deleted.
5.   Upon examining both oral and documentary evidence, viz., PW1
     to PW2 and DW1 and Exs.P1 to P45 and Exs.D1 to D49 and after
     hearing both sides, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
     28.02.2007, partly dismissed and partly allowed the suit in the
     following terms:
           (i)Decree passed in O.S. No. 80/78 on the file of Munsif
           Court, Tumkur, filed by Defendant No.1 is partly binding
           effect in respect of the relief of permanent injunction and
           accordingly, the said suit is partly decreed, as the said
           decree is 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.
           (ii)Declared that Defendant No.3 is the rightful owner of
           the suit scheduled property and they are entitled to get
           the possession of the same from the Defendant No.1 as
           per the due procedure of law.
6.   Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial
     Court, the appellant / Defendant No.1 filed a Regular Appeal bearing
     No.478 of 2009 before the First Appellate Court. Vide judgment
1880                                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports



      and decree dated 31.08.2010, the First Appellate Court allowed
      the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by
      the trial Court in O.S.No.505 of 1989. Aggrieved by the same, the
      Respondent No.1 / third plaintiff preferred a Regular Second Appeal
      bearing No.2823 of 2010.
7.    Vide judgment and final order dated 01.10.2021, the High Court
      allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree
      passed by the First Appellate Court, and decreed the suit as prayed
      for. The High Court 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 is before us with the present Civil Appeal.
8.    When the matter was taken up for hearing on 16.12.20224, this Court
      granted an order of status quo.
9.    The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted
      that earlier, the appellant preferred a suit in O.S.No.80 of 1978 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 and after due contest,
      the suit was decreed in his favour; and the appeals filed by the
      authorities before the First Appellate Court and the High Court
      were dismissed; and hence, the decree of permanent injunction
      obtained by the appellant is conclusive and binding on the parties.
      However, without impleading themselves as parties to the earlier
      suit and contesting it, Respondent No.1 and others, claiming to
      be former students of Government Higher Secondary School (now
      known as Government Junior College, Tumkur) and as rate payers
      or persons interested in protecting property of the public, preferred
      the present suit in O.S.No.505 of 1989 in a representative capacity,
      for declaratory reliefs in favour of the Respondent No.2 / State of
      Karnataka with respect to the same property owned by the appellant.
      Thus, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs have no locus
      standi to maintain the present suit against the appellant.
      9.1. It is further submitted that the present suit came to be filed in
           1985, whereas the subject property has been in the possession


4    Issue notice to the respondents.
     In the meanwhile, the status quo existing as on today, to continue.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1881

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.



            of the appellant since 1970 vide a registered sale deed and
            therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Without
            properly considering the same, the High Court decided the
            issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs stating that the suit
            was filed in the interest of the public as well as the institution.
     9.2. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Annaimuthu
          Thevar (dead) by LRs v. Alagammal and others5, the learned
          counsel submitted that in the earlier suit between the appellant
          and Respondent No.2 for permanent injunction, the issue of
          title with respect to the suit property was decided in favour of
          the appellant and hence, the finding relating to title, will operate
          as res judicata in the present suit, where title was an issue,
          arising out of which is the present appeal. However, the High
          Court erred in holding that the proceedings are not hit by res
          judicata on the ground that the nature of the reliefs sought in
          both the suits are different. According to the learned counsel,
          the Respondent No.2 / State of Karnataka had contested the
          earlier suit at three forums and therefore, merely because a
          third party instituted the present suit for declaration in favour
          of Respondent No.2, the legal bar of res judicata cannot be
          brushed aside. Thus, it is submitted that the present suit is
          clearly an attempt to do something indirectly what cannot be
          done directly.
     9.3. It is also submitted that the original Survey No.81 was subdivided
          into Sy. nos. 81/1, 81/2 and 81/1A and the same can be derived
          from Ex. P24 and Ex. P27 and hence, the issue of forfeiture
          could not have been decided against the appellant as there was
          no document to prove the alleged forfeiture. However, the High
          Court erred in relying on earlier proceedings instituted by the
          successors in interest of Md Bokhari, wherein it was pointed
          out that the land belonging to Md Bokhari was forfeited due
          to non-payment of arrears of land revenue and by necessary
          implication it was assumed that the land of successors in interest
          of Lankey would also be deemed to be forfeited. According to
          the learned counsel, merely because the successors in interest
          of Md bokhari failed to deny the forfeiture of their lands and the


5   (2005) 6 SCC 202
1882                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            Survey number was similar in those proceedings, by necessary
            implication it cannot be deduced that the land of the appellant
            was also necessarily forfeited. Moreover, the appellant was not
            a party to the proceedings instituted by successors in interest of
            Md Bokhari. Even if the appellant had no title, he had perfected
            his title by the law of adverse possession, as the appellant and
            his predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of
            the property for more than 60 years.
     9.4. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order
          passed by the High Court suffers from serious infirmities and
          illegalities and hence, the same should be set aside by this Court.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 / third
    plaintiff in the present suit submitted that the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4
    are former students of the Government Junior College, Tumkur,
    and are vitally interested in preserving the institution’s property and
    thus, have locus standi to file and maintain the present suit. In this
    regard, reference was made to the decision of this court in Kalyan
    Singh v. Chhoti and others6, wherein it was held that members
    of a community can maintain a suit in representative capacity for
    preserving the property of community.
     10.1. Continuing further, the learned counsel submitted that the earlier
           suit filed by the appellant was only for permanent injunction
           and there was no issue of title to the property involved. That
           apart, during the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed an
           interlocutory application seeking amendment of the plaint
           by adding the relief of declaration of title. However, the said
           application was subsequently, withdrawn by the appellant.
           Moreover, there was no finding with regard to title in the earlier
           suit. Therefore, the decree of injunction would not operate as
           res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaratory reliefs. In
           this regard, reference was made to the decision of this court
           in Anathulla Sudhakar v. P.Bucchi Reddy by LRs and others7.
     10.2. It is also submitted that the suit property was forfeited in the year
           1919 due to non-payment of land revenue and consequently,



6   (1990) 1 SCC 266
7   (2008) 4 SCC 594
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1883

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


            it was resumed by the Government and hence, the appellant
            has no valid title to the suit property.
     10.3. Stating so, the learned counsel submitted that the High Court
           after examining the entire evidence available on record,
           correctly decreed the suit as prayed for, by the order impugned
           herein, which need not be interfered with by this court.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 / State of Karnataka
    submitted that the reliefs sought in the earlier suit and in the present
    suit are altogether different and Respondent No.1 was not a party
    to the earlier suit. Further, the issue of title over the disputed land
    between the parties was not decided in the earlier suit, which was
    filed only for permanent injunction. That apart, Respondent No.1 and
    others filed the present suit in O.S.No.505/1989 in a representative
    capacity. Therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply to
    the present suit.
     11.1. Elaborating further, the learned counsel submitted that the land
           in dispute bearing Sy.No.81 of Tumkur originally belonged to
           one Syed Md. Bokhari and Lankey and both failed to pay arrears
           of land revenue and therefore, their lands were forfeited and
           resumed by the Government. It is also submitted that once
           the land was forfeited, due to non-payment of arrears of land
           revenue, Syed Md. Bokhari and Lankey lost their ownership
           and they were estopped from entering into any transaction with
           respect to the suit land in any manner. Despite the appellant
           being aware of the same, proceeded to purchase the suit
           property from the legal heirs of Lankey. Thus, it is submitted
           that this transaction was void and hence, the appellant cannot
           claim any right, title and interest over the suit property.
     11.2. It is also submitted that the earlier suit filed by the appellant
           was for permanent injunction under section 38 of the Specific
           Relief Act, whereas, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs under
           Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC in a representative capacity had a
           wider scope than an ordinary suit and hence, the same was
           maintainable before the trial Court. That apart, since the present
           suit was filed in the interest of public as well as Institution,
           the delay could not come in the way of entertaining the same.
           Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal filed
           by the appellant, with an intent to grab the land belonging to
           the Government, lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
1884                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


12.    We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
      also perused the materials placed before us.
13. As already stated above, the plaintiffs 1 to 4 claiming themselves as
    former students of Government Higher Secondary School, now, known
    as Government Junior College, Tumkur, filed the suit in O.S.No.505
    of 1989 in a representative capacity seeking declaration in favour
    of the Respondent No.2 / Defendant No.3 - State of Karnataka and
    for direction to the appellant / Defendant No.1 to deliver possession
    of the suit property to the State. The suit schedule property is a
    land bearing Survey No.81/1 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas, but the
    subject matter in issue is 15 guntas of land. After due contest, the
    trial Court decreed the suit partly, which was set aside by the First
    Appellate Court on appeal filed by the appellant. However, the High
    Court decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs, by the order
    impugned in this appeal.
14. It is borne out from the records that original Sy.No.81 of Tumkur
    comprised totally 7 acres 15 guntas of land, of which, 15 guntas
    of land was acquired by the Indian Railways, 5 acres 3 guntas
    remained in the Khata of Mohamad Bokhari and 1 acre 37 guntas
    remained in the Khata of Lankey. The Government took over 2
    acres 22 guntas from the Khata of Mohamad Bokhari and 1 acre
    10 guntas from the Khata of Lankey vide order dated 10.09.1919.
    In respect of the said lands, revenue/kandayam was not paid to the
    Government and hence, they were resumed by the Government
    and thereafter, the said lands were reflected as Government lands.
    Objections were invited from the public giving two years’ time, and
    upon no objections being received, in the year 1933-34, record of
    rights and index of lands were accordingly, prepared. Subsequently,
    Sy.No.81 was divided into Sy.No.81/1 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas
    and 81/2 measuring 10 guntas.
      14.1. According to the Respondent No.2, the land measuring 6
            acres 30 guntas situated in Sy.No.81/1 was shown as Town
            Extension, i.e., the land belonging to Mokam Ramaswamy
            Setty. Of the 6 acres 30 guntas, 19 guntas was shown as a
            road leading from the Railway Station to Someshwarpuram and
            remaining 6 acres 11 guntas were shown as the Government
            High School Compound, Tumkur. Subsequently, in 1960,
            one Mohiddin Bibi as the legal representative of Mohamad
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1885

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


            Bokhari, acquired the land measuring 2 acres 4 guntas from
            the remaining 6 acres 11 guntas of land. Later, the Secretary
            of Sarvodaya High School namely C.K.Gopal Rao purchased
            the said land and with sanction on 23.12.1968, formed a layout
            for 3 acres 15 guntas. Thereafter, the authorities of the said
            school attempted to take possession of the land belonging to
            Government High School, which compelled the Headmaster of
            the Government High School to obtain a prohibitory order on
            25.10.1969 from the Taluka Magistrate, against the Secretary
            of Sarvodaya High School, Mohidin Bibi etc., against which,
            the Secretary of Sarvodaya High School preferred an appeal
            before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which came to be
            dismissed on 28.01.1971. Meanwhile, in 1970, the Head
            Master of Government High School, Tumkur, made an
            application before the Competent Authority for cancellation
            of measurement effected in Sy.No.81/1 and pursuant to the
            same, cancellation order was passed by the Tahsildar on
            11.05.1972. Consequently, the Tahsildar rectified the index of
            lands on 16.06.1972 and issued a copy on 25.06.1973 restoring
            the entire measurement of 6 acres 30 guntas in the name of
            Town Extension. Thereafter, Sarvodaya High School claimed
            ownership under Mohamad Bokhari and filed O.S.No.268 of
            1981 before the District Munsif, Tumkur, which came to be
            dismissed on 14.11.1988. The said Sarvodaya High School filed
            a Regular Appeal in R.A.No.117 of 1988 and the same also
            came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the said School filed R.S.A.
            No.349 of 1999, which was also dismissed on 28.06.2005. As
            a result, Sarvodaya High School has no right over the said
            property. It is thus, stated by the Respondent No.2 that the suit
            property belonged to the Government and was in possession
            of the Government High School.
     14.2. On the other hand, the appellant averred that as per the
           revenue records, Sy No 81 was 7 acres and 15 guntas, of
           which, one Lankey owned 1 acre and 37 guntas and Md.
           Bokhari owned 5 acres and 18 guntas. Out of Lankey’s 1
           acre 37 guntas, 1 acre and 10 guntas was acquired for the
           Government High School, Tumkur and 12 acres for Municipal
           Road running from the Railway Station to Someshwara
           extension in 1919. The remaining 15 guntas continued to be
1886                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


            in the possession of Lankey and later, by his son Chikkanna,
            prior to 1928. Similarly, out of total 5 acres and 18 guntas of
            Md Bokhari, 15 guntas was acquired for railways; 7 guntas for
            municipal road; 2 acres and 22 guntas for the Government High
            School. Lankey’s son Chikkanna who owned the 15 guntas
            and was in possession prior to 1928 sold the 15 guntas to
            one Chowdhary Abdul Haq on 29.11.1928 under a registered
            sale deed. The revenue khata was made out in the name of
            Chowdhary Abdul Haq, who sold it to Abdul Razak under a
            registered sale deed on 18.07.1938. Subsequently, the said 15
            guntas was converted for non-agricultural purposes by order
            of the Revenue Commissioner in Order No.DIS.254/42-43
            and was renumbered by the Tumkur Municipality in the name
            of Abdul Razak in 1944. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Abdul
            Razak mortgaged the said property to the appellant in 1959
            and eventually sold it to the appellant vide a registered sale
            deed dated 07.12.1970. Since then, the appellant has been in
            possession of the same. It is further averred by the appellant
            that the original Sy. No. 81 was sub-divided as 81/1, 81/2 and
            81/1A, as evident from Exs.P.24 and P.27 and there was no
            document to prove that the entire land in Sy.No.81 was resumed
            by the Government due to non-payment of land revenue by
            the original owner. Thus, according to the appellant, he is a
            bona fide purchaser of 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.81/1A of
            Tumkur, which is the subject matter in dispute in O.S.No.505
            of 1989, from the legal heirs of Lenkey.
15. Be that as it may. Earlier, the appellant / Defendant No.1 filed a suit
    in O.S. No. 80 of 1978 before the Principal Munsif Court, Tumkur,
    against the Public Works Department and State of Karnataka,
    for permanent injunction in respect of the same subject property,
    alleging that he had purchased the suit property (vacant land) from
    the legal heirs of Abdul Razak for a valuable sale consideration on
    07.12.1970 and thereafter, the property was registered in the name
    of the appellant on 11.02.1971. It was further alleged that to the
    north and east of the suit property, there was an open field belonging
    to the Government High School, in which, the State had proposed
    to construct a Government Girls’ Hostel and hence, there was a
    likelihood of the suit property being encroached upon by them. After
    examining the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1887

        M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


     that the appellant was in lawful possession of the suit property, and
     thus, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, vide judgment dated
     30.11.1981. Challenging the same, the State preferred R.A.No.2/82,
     which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated
     07.04.1984. The further appeal in RSA No.717/1984 preferred by the
     State also came to be dismissed on 11.02.1985. The Defendants /
     authorities did not claim any right, title and interest over the suit
     property. There was no record to state whether any appeal against
     the said judgment of the High Court, is pending or disposed of, by
     this Court. In such circumstances, based on the available materials,
     it can be inferred that the decree of permanent injunction granted by
     the trial Court in favour of the appellant, became final and conclusive
     in respect of the suit property.
16. Pertinently, it is to be pointed out 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 on
    05.12.1979 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 on 30.11.1981.
17. Admittedly, neither the plaintiffs in the present suit nor the Government
    High School, were made parties to the earlier suit filed by the appellant
    which was solely between the appellant and the State, only for the
    relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. It is
    also an admitted fact that the decree granted in O.S.No.80 of 1978
    in favour of the appellant was challenged by the State before the
    appellate courts, but ended in dismissal. In the present suit, from
    which this appeal arises, the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 claim to be former
    students of the Government Higher Secondary School now known as
    Government Junior College, Tumkur, 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 vide order dated 21.11.1972 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 O.S. No. 505 of 1989 in a representative
1888                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     capacity inter alia seeking a declaration that the decree obtained by
     the appellant in O.S.No.80/1978 is not binding on the Respondent
     No.2 / State and also a declaration that the Respondent No.2 / State
     is the rightful owner of the suit property. 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.
18. Though it was contended on the side of the contesting Respondents
    that the suit schedule property was never in possession of the
    appellant / Defendant No.1 or in possession of his predecessors in
    title and the appellant did not get the actual possession of the suit
    property under the alleged sale and he trespassed into the property
    illegally and now, put up stone slabs only in 1985, i.e., after the suit in
    O.S. No. 80/1978 came to be attained finality; till then, the Respondent
    No.2 / Defendant No.3 was in actual possession of the same by
    using it as playground; and thus, the possession of the appellant
    over the suit property is unlawful and he is liable to be ejected, we
    cannot accept the same, as 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.
19. 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.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1889

          M/s B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons v. R N Nadigar & Ors.


20. In fine, we set aside the judgments and decrees / orders passed
    by the Courts below and dismiss the suit filed by the Respondent
    No.1 and other plaintiffs. 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.
21. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. The parties shall bear
    their own costs.
22. Connected miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
    of.

     Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)