Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8829 of 2010
Decided On : 08-07-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Applicability – Matter which is directly and substantially in issue in previous litigation ought not to be permitted to be raised and adjudicated upon in subsequent suit – Principle of res judicata is in consonance with public policy so as to bring to an end conflict of interest on same issue between same parties – Principle of res judicata is applicable not only between plaintiff and defendants but also between co-defendants – (i) There must be conflict of interest between co-defendants; (ii) There is necessity to decide the conflict in order to give relief to plaintiff; and (iii) there is final decision adjudicating said conflict – Once all these conditions are satisfied, principle of res judicata can be applied inter se co-defendants. (Para 23)
(B) Property Law – Suit for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession over land – Decree passed in favour of plaintiff-appellant reversed by First Appellate Court basically on the ground that suit was hit by principle of res judicata – In earlier suit, respondent Cantonment Board has accepted that plaintiff-appellant has been realizing rent of shops existing over suit land from tenants – Fact that name of plaintiff-appellant was also mutated in revenue records proves it beyond doubt, in absence of any contrary evidence that he is in possession of suit land – In view of overwhelming unconfronted evidence, First Appellate Court manifestly erred in reversing finding of Court of first instance that plaintiff-appellant is in settled possession of suit land and he has successfully proved his ownership rights over the same – Principle of res judicata would not be attracted as issue in present suit was neither directly or indirectly in issue in previous suit and there was no conflict of interest between co-defendants in previous suit which if any never came to be adjudicated upon – Suit as filed by plaintiff-appellant claiming title over suit land against Cantonment Board, is not barred under Section 11 CPC – Judgment and order passed by Trial Court restored. (Paras 25, 33, 34, 35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff-appellant had filed Title Suit for declaration of his title over the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of plaint with structures and buildings standing thereon and for confirmation of his possession over the same. Aggrieved by judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.04.2009 dismissing appeal; plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal and has also assailed the judgment and order dated 28.06.2006 of First Appellate Court alleging that his suit was not barred by res judicata and that he has validly acquired title and possession over the disputed land.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order of High Court dated 01.04.2009 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 28.06.2006 are hereby set aside and the judgment and order dated 16.03.2000 passed by the trial court is restored decreeing the title suit of the plaintiff-appellant but with no order as to costs.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Shri Manoj Goel, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Manoj Swarup, learned senior counsel for the respondents were heard.
2. The Title Suit No.9/89 of the plaintiff-appellant (Har Narayan Tewari) was decreed on 16.03.2000 by the court of first instance. In an appeal by the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, the said decree was reversed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 28.06.2006; basically on the ground that the suit was hit by principle of res judicata in view of the decision in the earlier Title Suit No.8/64 instituted by Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi,1[Hereinafter referred to as “Maharani”] (wife of Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narayan Singh,2[Hereinafter referred to as “Raja”]) wherein the plaintiff-appellant was defendant No.32 and the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh was the main contesting defendant. The Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant to the High Court was dismissed on 01.04.2009 simply stating that it does not raise any substantial question of law.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court dated 01.04.2009 dismissing the appeal; the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal and has also assailed the judgment and order dated 28.06.2006 of the First Appellate Court alleging that his suit was not barred by res judicata and that he has validly acquired title and possession over the disputed land.
4. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the above referred Title Suit No.9/89 for declaration of his title over the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint with structures and buildings standing thereon and for confirmation of his possession over the same. In the alternative, a prayer was made that in case the plaintiff-appellant was not found in possession of the said property, the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, or any person claiming through it, be evicted and he be put in possession with the further direction that they be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the said property in future.
5. According to Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint, the dispute is about two pieces of land: First, land measuring 0.12 acres out of 2.04 acres of Plot No.432; and secondly land measuring 0.18 acres out of 0.66 acres of Plot No.438 both situate in village Ramgarh, within the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh with boundaries as described in the Schedule. In short, the dispute in the suit is only regarding 0.12 acres of Plot No.432 and 0.18 acres of Plot No.438 i.e. total of 0.30 acres of the above two plots and the structures existing thereon.
6. The plaintiff-appellant is claiming title and possession over the suit land alleging that the Raja, the proprietor of the village, had settled the aforesaid land measuring 0.30 acres of the land comprising of Plot Nos.432 and 438 in his favour in the year 1942.
7. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that village Ramgarh was the part of the Estate of Raja. It was under the management of the Court of Wards and was released in Raja’s favour in the year 1937. During the period of its management by the Court of Wards, its manager acquired 5.38 acres of additional land comprised in various plots including Plot Nos.432 and 438 in proceedings bearing Case No.1/1926-27 and came in possession thereof.
8. The Raja in the year 1942 made a permanent raiyati settlement of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and also delivered its possession to him on payment of rent and salami of Rs.2,000/-. After vesting of the Estate of Ramgarh in the State of Bihar, the name of the plaintiff-appellant was mutated upon enhancement of rent @ Rs.2/- per decimal by an order dated 04.01.1963 of the Additional Collector, Ramgarh passed in Case No.115/62-63 (Exh.13). The plaintiff-appellant had constructed certain structures on the said land which have been let out to various persons, all of whom are defendants in the suit.
9. Upon the establishment of the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, the ex-propr
(1) Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata is applicable not only between plaintiff and defendants but also between co-defendants.(2) Mutation of name in Revenue records is a proof of possession in....
The findings of a prior suit are not binding on parties not involved in that suit, emphasizing res judicata principles and the necessity of a fair hearing.
The doctrine of res judicata between co-defendants must be applied with care and caution, and the findings in a previous suit can operate as res judicata between co-defendants if certain conditions a....
The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties have litigated substantially the same issue in a previous suit, barring re-litigation of those issues.
The principle of res judicata applies where previous judgments on the same issue bind parties, regardless of claims involving part of the land. Judicial findings must reflect conscious application to....
Possession established through reclamation under the C.N.T. Act is valid if supported by evidence of landlord consent, and findings from criminal proceedings do not bind civil courts.
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
