Res-Judicata Bars Different Trustees From Relitigating Same Trust Property Dispute: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that a trust application regarding a dispute over trust property cannot be maintained if the dispute has already been conclusively decided in an earlier proceeding, even if the subsequent suit is brought by a different set of trustees. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 213]

Justice JC Doshi was hearing an appeal by trustees of Shri Agarwal Samaj Trust, challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, Dahod. Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the District Court had dismissed the appellant's application seeking a declaration that certain immovable properties allegedly purchased by the former trust officials using trust funds should be treated as trust properties.

Rejecting the appellant's contention that the earlier proceedings would not bind them because they were different trustees, the Court said that as per Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, the doctrine of res judicata applies to the same parties as well as the parties litigating under the same title. In the present as well as the earlier proceedings, the parties were litigating as “trustees of the trust, i.e., under the same title”.

“The issue in dispute since has been judged by the competent Court in previous decision, it prevents/stops Court from trying new suit or issue that has already been directly & substantially decided in former suit between same party or between the party under whom they or any one of them litigating under same title,” the Court said.

The High Court also rejected the appellant's contention that the earlier proceedings had not attained finality because the appeal had abated following the death of the trustee who had filed it. Referring to Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court said, “Where a trustee of a trust has died, another trustee to whom the interest of the trust has been devolved may continue the proceedings.”

As the surviving trustees failed to continue the proceedings, the first appeal stood abated, and the finding in the earlier proceeding— that the disputed properties were the respondents' personal property— attained finality, the Court said.

The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's holding in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshi Ammal (2015), “The raison d'etre and public policy on which Res judicata is predicated is that the party who has raised any aspect in a litigation and has had an Issue cast thereon, has lead evidence in that regard, and has argued on the point, remains bound by the curial conclusions once they attain finality.”

The Court held that as the earlier decision attained finality, the District Court had rightly dismissed the subsequent trust application based on the doctrine of res judicata. It found that the Additional District Judge has committed no error, “much less an error of law.”

Justice JC Doshi dismissed the appeal and refused the appellants' request to suspend the implementation of the judgment for four weeks to enable them to approach a higher forum.

Background

The appellants, claiming to be trustees of Agrawal Samaj Trust, had moved an application under Section 56A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act alleging that the former President and Secretary of the trust had purchased six immovable properties using trust funds in their personal names. They sought directions to record the properties as trust properties, restrain respondents from selling the immovable properties without permission under Section 36 of the Act, and compel the respondents to hand over records relating to the trust's financial transactions.

The District Court treated the application as a suit under Section 50 of the Act and dismissed it. The court found that the litigation was barred by res judicata as an earlier proceeding on the same issue had attained finality, which held that the disputed properties were the respondents' personal properties.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the earlier decision should not be considered res judicata because it had been initiated by a different trustee and the appeal against it had abated.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the earlier judgment had become final after the appeal abated and that the present proceedings raised the same issue between the same litigating parties.

Case: MADANLAL RADHELAL BANSAL & ORS. Versus AGRAWAL SAMAJ TRUST DAHOD & ORS.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 213