Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY in Maha Thejo Mandala Sabha vs The Assistant Commissioner on 14 September, 2018Matching Fragments
23. Moreover, the principles of res judicata would also operate against the respondents, as the respondents have already filed a detailed rejoinder in the Civil Appeal Nos.4178-4179 of 2013 before the Apex Court taking a plea that by virtue of the amendment in Section 6(18), the 'religious institution' includes a 'Samadhi' also. When the respondents have failed to succeed on the said ground in the civil appeals and also failed to prosecute the review petition, they cannot be now permitted to re-argue the same plea that by virtue of the amendment brought in Section 6(18), the 'religious institution' includes a 'Samadhi' also. This is also against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 5 SCC 75, wherein it is held that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again, for the simple reason that the principle of res judicata is to give a finality to judicial decisions. It is pertinent to extract paragraphs 40 to 42 of the said judgment as follows:-
24. The Apex Court, while explaining the scope of finality of judgment, has also ruled that one should not be made to face the same kind of litigation twice ever, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice. It is also pertinent to extract paragraph-44 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy's case, as follows:-
44. In Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, (1999) 5 SCC 590, this Court has explained the scope of finality of the judgment of this Court observing as under:
29. Also, the Honourable Apex Court in the famous case in Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 75, categorically held that Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour of the persons deprived. Therefore, taking over of the management in such circumstances must be for a limited period..