Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 875
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) @ DIARY NO. 14976 of 2024
SMT. ARIFA & ORS.
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
ABHIMAN APARTMENT CO OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1.
The question arising in the above case is as to whether
the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court
would enable the party to revive a cause of action and
save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds
earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings of the
trial court and the first appellate court, affirmed by the
High Court in Second Appeal.
2. We heard Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sharanagouda
Patil, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The original plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.07.19
12:02:05 IST
Reason:
petitioners herein admittedly entered into an agreement
for sale of the suit scheduled property to the first
Page 1 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
defendant, a Cooperative Society. It is also admitted that
a Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favour of the
second defendant, the Secretary of the first defendant. It
is alleged that the PoA was executed on coercion and
misrepresentation, which also stood cancelled before
the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first
defendant by the second defendant, by virtue of the PoA.
Admittedly, the plaintiff first filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the second defendant, impleaded in
his capacity as the Secretary of the Society, for a
permanent injunction from alienating or disposing off the
plots comprised in the suit scheduled property and from
making any constructions thereon. The said suit was
dismissed by the trial court confirmed by the First
Appellate Court against which the plaintiff approached
the High Court in the second appeal. The second appeal
stood allowed upon which the Society filed an SLP before
this Court in which leave was granted and the Civil
Appeal was allowed as per Annexure P/9, remanding the
matter to the High Court by Annexure P/10.
Page 2 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
4. The High Court on remand, dismissed the second appeal
finding no substantial question of law and also rejected
an amendment application to incorporate additional
reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession,
which applications were filed in the second appeal. The
High Court having agreed with the concurrent findings,
while dismissing the Second Appeal granted liberty to
file a comprehensive suit for the reliefs sought for,
including the proposed amendment.
5. Relying on the liberty granted, the plaintiff filed a fresh
suit for declaration of two sale deeds executed by second
defendant in favour of the first defendant as void ab initio
and declaration of the further sale of plots comprised in
the scheduled land by the first defendant in favour of the
defendant nos. 2-120 as illegal and invalid. The plaintiff
also sought possession of the property from defendant
nos. 1-120 and a permanent injunction restraining them
from interfering with the actual physical and peaceful
possession of the scheduled property by the plaintiff. The
said suit was decreed by the trial court and in first appeal
Page 3 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
the judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was
dismissed on the grounds of resjudicata , limitation and
non-joinder of necessary parties.
6. On the ground of resjudicata , we cannot but notice that
the High Court in the earlier round in Annexure P/10
judgment found that the plaintiff had executed two sale
agreements in favour of the first defendant and had put
the first defendant in possession of the scheduled land,
the conveyance having been effected subsequently by
the Secretary of the Society to the Society on the strength
of a PoA. The High Court approved the concurrent
finding that the notice of cancellation of the PoA was
never served on the Secretary of the Society. The
acknowledgement produced to prove its service was not
with respect to the notice of cancellation, since it was four
months later to the date in the notice of cancellation. It
was also found by all the three courts that sale deeds
were executed in favour of the allottees of the Society in
whose possession the plots were, who had constructed
residential buildings in the said lands: not impleaded in
Page 4 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
the suit seeking permanent injunction. The additional
relief prayed through an amendment for declaration of
title and recovery of possession was hence rightly
rejected by the High Court. The second appeal was
dismissed finding no substantial question of law and by a
laconic observation, liberty as stated above was
reserved.
7. In the impugned judgment reversing the judgment and
decree of the trial court, the High Court has categorically
found that the suit was barred by limitation. The specific
averment regarding the cause of action, as stated in the
plaint was extracted, which was the date on which the
High Court had dismissed the second appeal and
reserved such liberty. The limitation would commence
from the date of execution of the agreements, the first two
of which were in the year 1998. Though the two sale
deeds in favour of the Society were thus executed, when
the first suit was pending, the plaintiff did nothing to
challenge the said conveyance. In the earlier suit the
defendant in the written statement had specifically
Page 5 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
pleaded about the conveyances and the plaintiff
admitted his knowledge of all the conveyances while
verifying the ‘record of rights’. No cause of action can be
claimed on the liberty reserved, which is only on just
exceptions including limitation, which in any event has to
go by the period prescribed in the statute of limitation.
The High Court has further found that there can also be
no resort to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, since the suit
already laid was not before a wrong forum but was not
properly framed. Even when a suit is withdrawn with
leave of the Court to file a fresh suit, under Order 23 Rule
1 of the CPC limitation applies with full force as per Rule
2 of Order 23.
8. The presently filed suit had sought for declaration as null
and void, the conveyances in favour of the first
respondent Society and the subsequent conveyances
made to defendant nos. 2-120 as also recovery of
possession from the defendants and permanent
injunction as against the defendants from interference in
the enjoyment of the property.
Page 6 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
9. The entire sub-stratum of the plaintiff’s case is built upon
the alleged coercion and misrepresentation in execution
of the PoA and subsequent cancellation effected, which
ground does not survive having been rejected
concurrently by three courts in the earlier proceeding,
clearly barring the present suit on the ground of
resjudicata. The issue now agitated was substantially in
issue in the earlier suit and decided against the plaintiff,
bringing in the rigor of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
10. We perfectly agree with the findings in the impugned
judgment regarding limitation and resjudicata and
cannot but observe that the liberty granted by the High
Court in the second appeal was akin to flogging a dead
horse; which cannot give a fresh lease of life to either the
cause of action; to save limitation or the grounds on which
the declaration and consequential relief has been prayed
for in the present suit; which grounds were already
adjudicated in the earlier suit and found against the
plaintiff by three Courts.
Page 7 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
11. We also notice that the High Court has further observed
that the suit is barred for reason of non-joinder of
necessary parties, namely the Belgaum Urban
Development Authority and the Badminton Association
who were conceded certain extents of property for
forming a lay out and civic amenities; with roads to be
maintained by the former, and the establishment and
management of a Badminton Hall by the latter, which we
agree with.
12. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well-
considered judgment of the High Court which we affirm
while rejecting the Special Leave Petition.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…………………………………J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) @ DIARY NO. 14976 of 2024
SMT. ARIFA & ORS.
…PETITIONERS
VERSUS
ABHIMAN APARTMENT CO OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
…RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1.
The question arising in the above case is as to whether
the liberty granted to file a fresh suit by the High Court
would enable the party to revive a cause of action and
save limitation, so as to enable raking up all grounds
earlier raised and rejected by concurrent findings of the
trial court and the first appellate court, affirmed by the
High Court in Second Appeal.
2. We heard Mr. Raghavendra Srivatsa, Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sharanagouda
Patil, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The original plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.07.19
12:02:05 IST
Reason:
petitioners herein admittedly entered into an agreement
for sale of the suit scheduled property to the first
Page 1 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
defendant, a Cooperative Society. It is also admitted that
a Power of Attorney (PoA) was executed in favour of the
second defendant, the Secretary of the first defendant. It
is alleged that the PoA was executed on coercion and
misrepresentation, which also stood cancelled before
the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first
defendant by the second defendant, by virtue of the PoA.
Admittedly, the plaintiff first filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the second defendant, impleaded in
his capacity as the Secretary of the Society, for a
permanent injunction from alienating or disposing off the
plots comprised in the suit scheduled property and from
making any constructions thereon. The said suit was
dismissed by the trial court confirmed by the First
Appellate Court against which the plaintiff approached
the High Court in the second appeal. The second appeal
stood allowed upon which the Society filed an SLP before
this Court in which leave was granted and the Civil
Appeal was allowed as per Annexure P/9, remanding the
matter to the High Court by Annexure P/10.
Page 2 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
4. The High Court on remand, dismissed the second appeal
finding no substantial question of law and also rejected
an amendment application to incorporate additional
reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession,
which applications were filed in the second appeal. The
High Court having agreed with the concurrent findings,
while dismissing the Second Appeal granted liberty to
file a comprehensive suit for the reliefs sought for,
including the proposed amendment.
5. Relying on the liberty granted, the plaintiff filed a fresh
suit for declaration of two sale deeds executed by second
defendant in favour of the first defendant as void ab initio
and declaration of the further sale of plots comprised in
the scheduled land by the first defendant in favour of the
defendant nos. 2-120 as illegal and invalid. The plaintiff
also sought possession of the property from defendant
nos. 1-120 and a permanent injunction restraining them
from interfering with the actual physical and peaceful
possession of the scheduled property by the plaintiff. The
said suit was decreed by the trial court and in first appeal
Page 3 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
the judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was
dismissed on the grounds of resjudicata , limitation and
non-joinder of necessary parties.
6. On the ground of resjudicata , we cannot but notice that
the High Court in the earlier round in Annexure P/10
judgment found that the plaintiff had executed two sale
agreements in favour of the first defendant and had put
the first defendant in possession of the scheduled land,
the conveyance having been effected subsequently by
the Secretary of the Society to the Society on the strength
of a PoA. The High Court approved the concurrent
finding that the notice of cancellation of the PoA was
never served on the Secretary of the Society. The
acknowledgement produced to prove its service was not
with respect to the notice of cancellation, since it was four
months later to the date in the notice of cancellation. It
was also found by all the three courts that sale deeds
were executed in favour of the allottees of the Society in
whose possession the plots were, who had constructed
residential buildings in the said lands: not impleaded in
Page 4 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
the suit seeking permanent injunction. The additional
relief prayed through an amendment for declaration of
title and recovery of possession was hence rightly
rejected by the High Court. The second appeal was
dismissed finding no substantial question of law and by a
laconic observation, liberty as stated above was
reserved.
7. In the impugned judgment reversing the judgment and
decree of the trial court, the High Court has categorically
found that the suit was barred by limitation. The specific
averment regarding the cause of action, as stated in the
plaint was extracted, which was the date on which the
High Court had dismissed the second appeal and
reserved such liberty. The limitation would commence
from the date of execution of the agreements, the first two
of which were in the year 1998. Though the two sale
deeds in favour of the Society were thus executed, when
the first suit was pending, the plaintiff did nothing to
challenge the said conveyance. In the earlier suit the
defendant in the written statement had specifically
Page 5 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
pleaded about the conveyances and the plaintiff
admitted his knowledge of all the conveyances while
verifying the ‘record of rights’. No cause of action can be
claimed on the liberty reserved, which is only on just
exceptions including limitation, which in any event has to
go by the period prescribed in the statute of limitation.
The High Court has further found that there can also be
no resort to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, since the suit
already laid was not before a wrong forum but was not
properly framed. Even when a suit is withdrawn with
leave of the Court to file a fresh suit, under Order 23 Rule
1 of the CPC limitation applies with full force as per Rule
2 of Order 23.
8. The presently filed suit had sought for declaration as null
and void, the conveyances in favour of the first
respondent Society and the subsequent conveyances
made to defendant nos. 2-120 as also recovery of
possession from the defendants and permanent
injunction as against the defendants from interference in
the enjoyment of the property.
Page 6 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
9. The entire sub-stratum of the plaintiff’s case is built upon
the alleged coercion and misrepresentation in execution
of the PoA and subsequent cancellation effected, which
ground does not survive having been rejected
concurrently by three courts in the earlier proceeding,
clearly barring the present suit on the ground of
resjudicata. The issue now agitated was substantially in
issue in the earlier suit and decided against the plaintiff,
bringing in the rigor of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
10. We perfectly agree with the findings in the impugned
judgment regarding limitation and resjudicata and
cannot but observe that the liberty granted by the High
Court in the second appeal was akin to flogging a dead
horse; which cannot give a fresh lease of life to either the
cause of action; to save limitation or the grounds on which
the declaration and consequential relief has been prayed
for in the present suit; which grounds were already
adjudicated in the earlier suit and found against the
plaintiff by three Courts.
Page 7 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024
11. We also notice that the High Court has further observed
that the suit is barred for reason of non-joinder of
necessary parties, namely the Belgaum Urban
Development Authority and the Badminton Association
who were conceded certain extents of property for
forming a lay out and civic amenities; with roads to be
maintained by the former, and the establishment and
management of a Badminton Hall by the latter, which we
agree with.
12. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well-
considered judgment of the High Court which we affirm
while rejecting the Special Leave Petition.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
…………………………………J.
(N.V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025.
Page 8 of 8
SLP (C) @D. No.14976 of 2024