Back
2009(7) Supreme 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi, and H.L.Dattu. JJJ.
Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal Nos. 7184-7185 of 2001
Decided on : 9-10-2009.
(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – The question whether a particular person has been given in adoption or not is different from whether a person has hereditary interest or rights in respect of a watan property – Therefore there is no exclusion of civil courts jurisdiction under the Act. (Para 30)
(c) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Validity of adoption cannot be decided by Collector. (Para 30)
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Constructive res judicata – When any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in a former proceeding but was not so made, then such a matter in the eye of law, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to bring about finality in it, is deemed to have been constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as decided – Also, when the material issue has been tried and determined between the same parties in a proper suit by a competent court as to the status of one of them in relation to the other, it cannot be again tried in another suit between them. (Para 32 and 33)
AIR 1978 SC 1283; (2005) 10 SCC 51; 1875 ILR (IC-144); (2005) 7 SCC 190; AIR 1965 SC 948; (1994) 2 SCC 14 – Relied upon AIR 1970 SC 1286 – Referred
(e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Constructive res judicata – An incidental finding on title in an earlier suit for injunction will not operate as res judicata where title is directly in question. AIR 2000 SC 3272 – Relied upon. (Para 35)
(f) Res judicata – Conditions precedent for a judgment to operate as res judicata restated. (Para 40) (1976) 4 SCC 780 – Distinguished
(g) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Respondent approaching State government after 14 years of the decree becoming final – State ordering SDO to hold enquiry – Without jurisdiction. (Para 43)
Facts of the case:
1. This case involves questions of Watandari rights under Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 and Bombay Inferior Village Vatan Abolition Act, 1858.
2. The questions of res judicata and jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue court are also involved in this case.
Findings of the Court:
Sub-Divisional Officer could not have entertained the application filed by the respondents in the year 1979 for regrant of Watanlands.
Finding regarding adoption in O.S. No. 104 of 1953 would operate as res judicata.
The legal case involves complex issues related to land rights, Watandari rights, and the jurisdiction of civil versus revenue courts. The core points are as follows:
The validity of adoption cannot be decided by revenue authorities such as the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer; this is within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts (!) (!) .
A finding on adoption in a civil suit, once final, operates as res judicata and binds the parties in subsequent proceedings, including revenue inquiries (!) (!) .
Orders passed by competent civil courts regarding hereditary rights or adoption are conclusive and must be given effect to, barring re-examination by revenue authorities (!) (!) .
The proceedings under the Watan Abolition Acts and related statutes are primarily administrative or revenue-based and do not permit civil courts to decide questions of legal status such as adoption or heirship (!) (!) .
The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties, subject matter, and issues are involved, and a final civil court judgment on adoption or hereditary rights must be respected in subsequent proceedings, including those before revenue authorities (!) (!) .
The order passed by the civil court in a suit for injunction, which involves a question of title or hereditary interest, is binding on revenue authorities and cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings under revenue statutes (!) (!) .
The statutory scheme and procedural provisions of the relevant Acts emphasize that questions of legal status, such as adoption, are to be decided by civil courts, and revenue authorities are limited to administrative inquiries regarding hereditary interest and land classification (!) (!) .
The finality of orders and decrees passed by civil courts, especially on questions of adoption and hereditary rights, must be respected, and subsequent administrative or revenue proceedings cannot override such judgments (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles underscore the importance of civil court jurisdiction over questions of adoption and hereditary rights, the binding effect of final judgments, and the limited scope of revenue authorities in such matters.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J.—
These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3667 of 1985 and Second Appeal No.87 of 1986 dated 01.7.1999, whereby and whereunder the writ petition and the second appeal filed by the respondents herein are allowed and the order passed by Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. A/WIN/SR/9/80 dated 6.4.1985 and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 2353 of 1979 dated 10.2.1984 and confirmed in Appeal No. 535 of 1984 dated 18.6.1985 are set aside.
2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, the facts in extenso requires to be noticed and they are:- The suit land was of the category of Mahar Watanlands situated in village Pimpre Khurd, Purandhar Taluk, District Pune. The suit lands originally belonged to Ramabai, wife of Pandu Sonawane and Radhabai wife of Sawale Sonavane. Both of them did not have any issues. The appellants had claimed that their forefathers were the nearest relatives of both the ladies and the property being watanlands, the same vested in them. The appellants had further claimed that Vithu Hira Mahar (for short ‘Vithu’) had no right, title or interest in the watanlands, however, was cultivating the suit lands after getting the entries made in the records of rights. It was the case of the plaintiffs/appellants before the trial court, that, when it came to the notice of respective fathers of the plaintiffs, as well as plaintiff No.2, an application dated 14.08.1940, was filed before the District Deputy Collector for resumption of watanlands which were in possession of Vithu. In the application filed, it was the stand of the applicants that they were the nearest relatives of Ramabai and that Vithu got his name entered in the record of rights fraudulently after the death of Ramabai. They had further contended that Vithu is an outsider and belongs to different family and as such his name could not have been entered in the Peta Account Book. After recording the statement of both the parties, the Deputy District Collector had passed an order dated 18.06.1941, directing the suit lands be returned to the applicants on the ground that the entries in the Peta Account Book made in Vithu’s name pursuant to an order said to have been passed in the year 1931 was not traceable and therefore, it is not clear how the name of a person not connected with the family of Watandar was entered in the cash allowance register and, therefore, the watanland requires to be resumed and handed over to the applicants who are the nearest family members of the deceased Watandar and further had directed that the circumstances under which Vithu’s name came to be entered in the revenue records was suspicious and the same should be investigated.
3. Vithu (respondent no.1) was the grandson of Ramabai. It is his assertion that he had filed an application on 16.07.1931 before the Mamlatdar under Section 15 and 18 of the Bombay Hereditary Office Act, 1874, to recognize him as the Watandar with respect to the suit lands. The Mamlatdar said to have passed an order dated 22.10.1931 in favour of Vithu under Section 15 and 18 of the said Bombay Hereditary Office Act, to enter his name in the Peta Account Book, in the place of Ramabai after declaring that Vithu was the adopted son of Ramabai.
4. Sometime in the year 1953, the appellants had filed a suit, O.S. No.104 of 1953, against Vithu and others for an order of permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad, to restrain Vithu and the other respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit land, on the ground that the Deputy District Collector had passed an order in their favour and that Vithu and others were obstructing their peaceful possession of the suit land. The appellants had also based their claim on the finding arrived at by the Collector of Pune in his order dated 18.6.1941, that they were the represent
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
