A suit filed in a representative capacity cannot override the conclusive effect of a decree already attained finality, and res judicata shall bar any indirect challenge to settled rights."

Held:
The suit was not maintainable, as it was an indirect attempt to challenge a settled decree. The principle of res judicata applied, barring the suit, as the issue of possession was already concluded. The plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the State, which had contested and lost the previous round of litigation. The question of title was left open for adjudication in a proper suit. (para 19-21)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal)
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 11 (Res Judicata), Order 1 Rule 8 (Representative Suits)
• Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) – Section 38 (Permanent Injunction)
• Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 (Extinguishment of Rights)

Nature of Litigation:

• Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant (Defendant No.1) against the judgment of the High Court decreeing a suit for declaration and possession of disputed property.

Who Asked the Court and for What Remedy:

• Appellant: M/s. B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons (First Defendant) — Sought to set aside the High Court's decree which declared the State as the rightful owner of the suit property.
• Respondents: R N Nadigar and Others (Former students, in a representative capacity) — Sought declaration of title for the State of Karnataka and possession of the suit property from the Appellant.

Reason for Filing the Case:

• The High Court reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and decreed the suit for possession and title in favor of the State. The Appellant challenged the High Court’s findings on res judicata, limitation, and locus standi of the plaintiffs.

What Has Already Been Decided Until Now:

• Trial Court (2007): Partly decreed the suit, declaring the State as the rightful owner.
• First Appellate Court (2010): Set aside the Trial Court's judgment and ruled in favor of the Appellant.
• High Court (2021): Reversed the First Appellate Court and decreed the suit in favor of the Respondents.

Issues:

a) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to the prior decree of permanent injunction.
b) Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to maintain the suit in a representative capacity.
c) Whether the suit is barred by the limitation period.
d) Whether the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant’s Contentions (para 9):
a) The suit was barred by res judicata as a decree for permanent injunction in O.S.No.80/1978 had already attained finality.
b) The plaintiffs had no locus standi as they were not parties to the earlier suit.
c) The suit was time-barred since the property was purchased in 1970, and the suit was filed in 1989.
d) The Appellant had perfected title by adverse possession.

Respondents’ Contentions (para 10-11):
a) The decree in the earlier suit was for permanent injunction and did not decide the issue of title, hence res judicata did not apply.
b) Plaintiffs, as former students of the Government School, had locus standi to protect public property.
c) The land was forfeited by the Government in 1919 due to non-payment of land revenue.
d) The suit was filed in public interest and was not barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi (para 16-20):

• A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC cannot revive a dispute already settled between the State and the appellant.
• The decree of permanent injunction, even if not explicitly declaring title, conclusively established the appellant’s lawful possession (res judicata).
• Limitation bars public interest claims filed decades after the alleged cause of action arose.

Subjects:

Res Judicata — Locus Standi — Representative Suit — Permanent Injunction — Adverse Possession — Limitation — Bona Fide Purchaser — Public Interest Litigation — Forfeiture — Revenue Records