[Section 92 CPC suit] All persons interested in trust bound by judgment, barred by res judicata: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is of a representative character and all persons interested in the trust would be bound by the judgement in the suit and barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting a subsequent suit with the same or substantially the same issue (Jamia Masjid vs. K.V. Rudrappa).A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli ruled that an alteration in circumstances after decision in the first suit will require a trial for the determination of the plea of res judicata, if there arises a new fact which has to be proved.“Issues that arise in a subsequent suit may either be questions of fact or questions of law, or mixed questions of law and fact. An alteration in circumstances after decision in the first suit will require a trial for the determination of the plea of res judicata, if there arises a new fact which has to be proved. However, the plea of res judicata may, in an appropriate case, be determined as preliminary issue when neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact has to be adjudicated for resolving it,” the judgment said..In light of the observations, the Bench held that in the instant case, matters substantially in issue in the previous suit for administration and management of trust properties was distinct from issues from which present proceedings arose and, therefore, the second suit was not barred by res judicata..The apex court also ruled that a compromise decree in a prior suit would not bar a subsequent suit by res judicata but could bar the same by the application of estoppel by conduct..However, in the present case no compromise on the title to a suit property was arrived at, it was restricted to the issue of the erstwhile lessee handing over possession of the suit property as the end of the lease..The three-judge bench was hearing an appeal against an order of the Karnataka High Court that affirmed the view taken by the trial court and the first appellate court, holding that the suit by the appellant was barred by res judicata.The appellant, Jamia Masjid had instituted a suit in 1998 seeking declaration of the Wakf Board as the owner of the suit property and a decree of possession against the defendants.Abdul Khuddus, the spouse of the fifth Defendant and father of the sixth to ninth Defendants was the mutawalli who was managing the suit property for the Wakf Board.In 1963, Khuddus had given a declaration to the Wakf Board for the registration of the suit schedule property as a wakf. No objection to the registration of the suit schedule property was raised and eventually the property was notified as a wakf property in 1965.After the death of Khuddus, defendants 6 to 9 took possession of the suit property. On allegations of mismanagement, the Chairman recommended that the suit property be directly managed by the Board. Therefore, the State Wakf Board passed an order taking over the management.Soon after, defendants 5 to 9 however executed sale deeds in respect of the property in favour of Defendants 1 to 4.The cause of action arose when defendants 1 to 4 together with other defendants interfered with the possession of the appellant on the strength of the sale in their favour..The defendants contested the suit claiming the application of res judicata as a suit had been filed in 1950 by the members of the mosque, Jamayat Masjid, where Abdul Khuddus was a party and the District Judge had declared suit schedule property to be the personal property of Abdul Khuddus.“Since the parties and the subject matter of the first suit and the present suit are the same, the suit instituted by the appellant is barred by res judicata.”.Further, the defendants claimed that in a suit from 1968, the Mysore Board of Wakf moved against Khuddus seeking possession of the suit property. However, the suit ended in a compromise petition therefore, the Wakf Board gave up its claim in respect of the suit schedule property. It was thus claimed that the subsequent suit would be hit by res judicata..Both the trial court and Karnataka High Court held that the suit was barred by res judicata by virtue of the decisions in earlier suits.“The judgment obtained through a consent decree in OS 748/1968 was intended to put the litigation to an end. It would thus operate as res judicata in the subsequent suits.”, the High Court had said.The Supreme Court, however, ruled that there was no adjudication in the first suit of 1950 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 the suit 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," the Court noted. Therefore, the 1998 suit is not barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the first suit, the Court held..[Read Judgement]