Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Ors vs Meenakshi Ammal & Ors

4. The original lessee died after constructing the theatre and his widow filed a suit being O.S 125 of 1976, which came to be later renumbered as Suit No. 5 of 1978, impleading therein the temple as the first respondent and the members of the Trust Committee as respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Three persons who were alleged to be those to whom the site on which the theatre stood was sought to be sold by the Trustees, were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 7 to 9. The prayer made in Suit No. 5 of 1978 was for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession till the expiry of the period of lease.

5. During pendency of the said suit (Suit No. 5 of 1978), the Trustees filed two suits being numbered as O.S. Nos. 6 of 1978 and 7 of 1978, claiming arrears of rent from the lessee. All these three suits were tried together and a common judgment was delivered. The trial court held that the lessee was entitled to retain possession of the property for the duration of the lease. This finding was given in view of the statement made by the defendants in their written statement that they had no intention to interfere with the plaintiff's possession till the expiry of the lease. Accordingly, Suit No. 5 of 1978 was dismissed.

4. The question involved in the appeal would appear from the discussion of the relevant facts in this case.

10. Of these three Suits, OS 5 of 1978 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was dismissed and no appeal was filed therefrom. OS 7 of 1978 was also dismissed, no appeal was filed from it either.

19. In my opinion, the trial court unnecessarily went into the question of title etc. when it should have straightway dismissed the suit being O.S. No. 5 of 1978 in view of the fact that the defendants had stated in their written statement that they were not going to forcibly evicit the plaintiff, but would only take action in accordance with law.

20. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

1. I have read the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother, Justice Markandey Katju in this appeal and which was sent to me on 14.8.2009. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the draft judgment, rendered by His Lordship, dismissing the appeal.

2. I am of the view that the appeal should be allowed and the reasons for the said view are stated herein below.

33.Hon'ble Justice Katju in the judgment prepared by His Lordship has accepted the said view of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. Unfortunately, I cannot concur with His Lordship.

(Emphasis supplied)

66.Thus, the doctrine of Res-judicata is founded on three principles which are non-negotiable in any civilized version of jurisprudence. They are:

- 1920-21 (48) I.A. 187 at page 194 of the report.

70.Therefore, the importance of the doctrine of Res- judicata can hardly be over emphasized.

77.Those principles apply on all fours in the present case.

79.The following finding which has been reached by the learned trial Judge and is set out below stands and binds the parties:

(Emphasis supplied) 33

81.The appeal is, therefore, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.