1. Appeals against dismissal of second appeals on grounds of res judicata — subsequent consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 66
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Sinha, C.J.I., P.B.Gajendragadkar, Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Baljeet Singh
Versus
Risal Singh
Case No. : 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 of 1959
Date of Decision : 2/15/62
Advocates Appeared: Goyal J.P. : Mehta K.L. : Narain Bishan : Singh Sadhu : Sinha S.P.
Advocates:
BISHAN NARAIN, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.Mehta, S.P.SINHA, SADHU SINGH
BISHAN NARAIN, J.P.GOYAL, K.L.Mehta, S.P.SINHA, SADHU SINGH
Res judicata requires the previous adjudication to be between the same parties and regarding the same matter. A common judgment in multiple suits involving similar issues but different plots and parties does not constitute a single judgment for res judicata purposes.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4, 5, 11, 12, 27, 30, 49 - U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - Section 175 - Effect of consolidation operations on pending appeals - Appeals do not become infructuous if the notification under Section 52 has been issued closing the operations, or if the proceedings do not relate to the correction of records. (Paras 18, 23)
(B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - For a previous adjudication to bar a subsequent one, it is essential that the previous adjudication was between the same parties and with respect to the same matter - A common judgment delivered in multiple suits involving similar questions but different plots and parties does not amount to a single judgment for the purpose of res judicata; such a judgment is deemed to be as many judgments as the suits disposed of by it. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
Multiple suits were filed by three brothers for different plots against various defendants. The suits were tried together and disposed of by a common judgment, though twelve separate decrees were prepared. Nine second appeals were dismissed by the revenue board on the ground that they were barred by res judicata. During the pendency of the appeals, the land came under consolidation operations under the relevant state act.
Findings of Court:
The appeals did not become infructuous due to the consolidation operations or subsequent amendments to the Act. The revenue board erred in holding that the appeals were barred by res judicata as the previous judgments involved different parties and different plots of land.
Issues: Whether the appeals became infructuous due to the consolidation operations and amendments to the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and whether the appeals were barred by the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consolidation operations ceased upon the notification under Section 52 and the amendments were either prospective or inapplicable to the nature of the appeals. On res judicata, the court ruled that identity of parties and subject matter is essential; a common judgment on similar issues across different suits does not merge them into one.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondents contended that consolidation operations and statutory amendments rendered the appeals infructuous, barring the court from passing orders on the merits of the controversy. (Para 9 )
3. The court analyzed various amendments to the Consolidation Act, finding they operated prospectively or did not apply to proceedings not involving correction of village records. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
4. Res judicata requires identical parties and subject matter; a common judgment for multiple suits with different plots and parties does not constitute a single adjudication. (Para 27 )
5. Appeals allowed — order set aside — matter remanded for further hearing and decision according to law, considering the effect of consolidation proceedings. (Para 28 )
6. Do consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act automatically render pending appeals infructuous?
Not necessarily. The court held that unless specific statutory provisions expressly stay proceedings for correction of records or declaration of rights, and provided those provisions operate prospectively, pending appeals are not barred. (Para 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
7. Does a common judgment delivered in multiple suits necessarily operate as res judicata for all those suits?
No. A common judgment based on similar questions is deemed to be multiple judgments. For res judicata to apply, the previous adjudication must have been between the same parties and regarding the same matter. (Para 27 )
8. How does Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act affect the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts?
Section 49 bars civil or revenue courts from entertaining suits or proceedings regarding rights in land for which a declaration under Section 4 has been issued, ensuring adjudication occurs per the Act. (Para 16 , 25 , 26 )
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.
(1) THESE nine appeals, by special leave, are against the orders of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing nine second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that the orders of the First Appellate Court in three other connected first appeals had become final and operated as res judicata.
(2) KHUB Chand had three sons Karan Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these brothers instituted four suits. Hoshiar Singh instituted suit No. 48 of 1944 under s. 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. XVII of 1939), against one Bhartu, suit No.49 against Har Gyan, Mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram, sons of Sis Kam, brother of Bhartu, suit No.50 against Har Gyan and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Sis Ram, and suit No. 51 against one Banwari. Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos. 63, 61, 60 and 62 against similar defendents respectively. Mukhtiar Singhs suits against those defendents, respectively, were Nos.67, 65, 64 and 66. Each of these suits was for different sets of plots. The allegations of the plaintiffs in each suit and the contentions of the defendent in each suit were similar and therefore similar issues were framed in each suit and all the suits were tried together and were disposed of by one common judgment. Twelve decrees were, however, prepared. Against the twelve decrees the defendants-judgment debtors in each decree filed twelve first appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division. The Additional Commissioner dismissed three appeals for default. These were the appeals which were filed against Hoshiar Singh, Karam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by Banwari. The Additional Commissioner heard the remaining nine appeals on merits and dismissed them. The defendants-judgment debtors then filed nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue. They were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954.
(3) THE applications for special leave were filed in this Court in November 1954. Special leave was granted on April 18, 1955. By the time the appeals came up for hearing, some other events took place and as a result of them the respondents filed an application for adducing additional evidence under O.XLV, rr.1 to 5, Supreme Court Rules in November 1959, and also included in their statement of case a narration of those events and their effect.
(4) IT appears that the villages in which the lands in suit were situate, come under Consolidation Operations under the U.P. Consolidation of. Holdings Act, 1953(U.P.V of 1954), hereinafter called the Act, sometime in July1954, when a declaration was issued by the State Government under s.4 of the Act to the effect that it had been decided to make a Scheme of consolidation for that area. In December 1954, a statement of plots and tenure holders was prepared and in May 1955 a statement of proposals under s.19 was prepared; in August 1955 final statements in chak form 25 were issued. On October 17, 1955. the State Government published a notification under s.52 of the Act. Section 52 of the Act then read :
"AS soon as may be after the tenure-holders have entered into possession of their new holding in pursuance of Section 26, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette that the Consolidation operations have been closed in the village and the village shall then cease to be under consolidation operation."
(5) IT is thus seen that this village remained under Consolidation operations from some time in July 1954 to October 17, 1955.
(6) THE appellants did not file any objections before the Consolidation authorities under s.12 of the Act disputing the correctness or the nature of the entries in the statement prepared under s.11 or under s.20 against the statement of proposals prepared under s.19.
(7) SECTION 24 provides for the fixing of a date for the enforcement of the consolidation scheme. Section 25 provides for the issu
