Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. The matter in controversy was considered elaborately in its earlier decision by the High Court which was referred to as follows:

15. Now, it is relevant to note the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Krishnaiah's case (supra), following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Prabhu v. Krishna Prabhu, , which are as under:

"What was the "matter in controversy" in both the suits in question ? Undoubtedly, the controversy pertained to the nature of the suit land. The finding given is that it is an inam land granted by devadayam purpose to Kurathalwar Temple and that Appellants 2 to 5 herein are encroachers. Appellant No. 1 had no title and no evidence, whatever was brought on record by him to establish the title of his ancestors. Issue No. 3 in OS No. 4 of 1987 whether the plaintiff-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is entitled to injunction as prayed for an issue Nos. 1 and 2 in OS No. 4 of 1987 - (i) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction and (ii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction as prayed for -practically cover the same ground. If this appeal is to be heard and decided on merits, there is likelihood of inconsistent decrees coming into existence since the very source of the title in both the suits as put forward by the appellants herein is identical and such a situation is precluded by the principle of res judicata. As observed by the Supreme Court, "one of the tests for deciding whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to a particular case or not is to determine whether two inconsistent decrees will come into existence if it is not applied". (Emphasis is ours)