City Municipal Council Bhalki Vs. Gurappa (D) By Lrs & Anr.
|
Head Note
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 11
Res Judicata - Neither the reliefs claimed in the two suits were identical, nor the parties are the same and nor could the decision in the first suit said to have been on merits - Held that it cannot be held in the singular facts and circumstances that the suit in O.S. No. 39 of 1993 was barred by res judicata.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 , The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34
Suit for Declaration - Title and Possession - Second Appeal - Substantial question of law - Deceased respondent no.1 has established his title to the suit property - Appellant Municipality has not produced any document to prove their title to the suit property - Even if it was their case that the suit property was also acquired by the state government, it should have produced the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and award passed under Section 11 of the Act - Since the appellant Municipality had denied the title to the deceased respondent no.1 and his ancestors over the suit property, there is no question of them having acquired adverse title over the same - Since the appellant Municipality had no title over the suit property, it did not have any right to confer better title upon the suit schedule property upon the other defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 39 of 1993 -No merit in the claim of the appellant Municipality, as the reversal of the findings of fact on the relevant points answered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction by recording valid and cogent reasons on the substantial questions are perfectly correct and there is no miscarriage of justice in the interference by the High Court in the judgment and order passed by it in the second appeals.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80
Notice - Sufficiency of - Plea on behalf of the appellant Municipality that the suit in O.S. No. 39 of 1993 was not maintainable, as the notice was issued under Section 80 of CPC in suit O.S. No. 255 of 1984 could not be said to be sufficient notice for the institution of the suit in O.S. No. 39 of 1993 repelled - Held that this issue does not arise at all, as a municipal council is not a public officer, and no notice is necessary when a suit is filed against a municipality - Thus, the question of sufficiency of notice under Section 80 of the CPC does not arise at all.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34
Suit for Declaration - Title and Possession - Onus to prove - Held that in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove his title - Further, not only is the onus on the plaintiff, he must prove his title independently - A decree in his favour cannot be awarded for the only reason that the defendant has not been able to prove his title.
Topic(s)-Suit for Declaration - Title and Possession - Second Appeal - Notice - No notice required to municipality