LI Network
Published on: 26 July 2023 at 17:10 IST
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, presiding over a single-judge bench at the Karnataka High Court, clarified the application of the principle of res judicata in light of a divergent view taken by the Supreme Court on an issue.
The court emphasized that a divergent view by the apex court does not automatically override earlier judgments passed by competent courts, and the principle of res judicata would still apply between the same parties on the same issue.
The case in question involved petitioners Venkatesh and Ramesh, who sought the restoration of peaceful vacant possession of a property originally granted to their father under Rule 43(G) of the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules.
The land was later sold to respondent No.4, MB Shankar Reddy, and proceedings were initiated under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, leading to the resumption of the land.
The petitioners contended that they were not barred from seeking restoration due to a subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Siddagowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner (2003). However, Justice Magadum emphasized that this change in law did not nullify the binding character of earlier judgments.
The court clarified that even erroneous decisions can still operate as res judicata, and the correctness of the earlier judgment is not a matter to be re-argued in subsequent proceedings between the same parties, except in cases where evidence of fraud vitiates the earlier decision.
The court also considered the inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the present petition, citing the principle of laches, and subsequently dismissed the petition, upholding the earlier judgments and emphasizing the binding nature of decisions rendered by competent courts.
