THE JAMIA MASJID v. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

A (ii) While deciding on a scheme for administration in a representative suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC the court may, if the title is contested, have to decide if the property in respect of which the scheme for administration and management is sought belongs to the Trust; B (iii) A suit under section 92 CPC is of a representative character and all persons interested in the Trust would be bound by the judgment in the suit, and persons interested would be barred by the principle of res judicatafrom instituting a subsequent suit on the same or substantially the same issue; C (iv) Since the first suit (OS 92 of 1950-51) was filed by members interested in the Jamia Masjid and the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise (OS 149 of 1998) was filed by the President of Jamia Masjid, the formulation in (iii) above is satisfied;

D (v) There was no adjudication in the first suit (OS 92 of 1950- 51) 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 OS 92 of 1950-51, which was a suit for E administration and management of trust properties and for accounts, are distinct from the issues in the suit out of which the instant proceedings arise. Therefore, OS 149 of 1998 is not barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the first suit; F (vi) While a compromise decree in a prior suit will not bar a subsequent suit by virtue of res judicata, the subsequent suit could be barred by estoppel by conduct. However, neither the compromise petition dated 27 October 1969 nor the final decree in the second suit dated 27 October 1969 G indicate that a compromise on the title to the suit property was arrived at. The compromise was restricted to the issue of the erstwhile lessee handing over possession of the suit property at the end of the lease; and (vii) The third suit (OS 100/1983) was a suit for an injunction simpliciter. The third suit was withdrawn after the suit out H

THE JAMIA MASJID v. SRI K V RUDRAPPA (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. 719 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of which the instant proceeding arises was filed for seeking A a substantive declaration and an injunction. No adjudication on the rights of the parties was made in the third suit.

53Copy pinpoint53. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23 January 2012 in RSA 2189 of 2007. OS 149 of 1998 is restored to the B file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tumkur for trial. Having regard to the fact that the suit was instituted in1998, the Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the suit and to complete trial within a period of one year from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. C

54Copy pinpoint54. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.