1971 Supreme(AP) 176

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, A.V.KRISHNA RAO
Mangu Ramdas - Appellant
Versus
Madurai Venkataratnam - Respondent
Decided On : 09-03-71

The general principles of res judicata apply to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act, even though Section 64-A of the Act provides for the application of the rule of res judicata in only two cases.

Headnote:

ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES - SECTION 64-A - WHETHER EXHAUSTIVE - PREVIOUS ORDERS IN WRIT PETITION AND APPEAL - WHETHER OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT - DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 11 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 15 - WHETHER OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 56.

Fact of the Case:

In a suo motu enquiry under Section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act, two land-holders claimed patta for themselves alleging that the land in question is zeryothi private land. The 1st respondent opposed the claim and claimed patta for himself contending that he has the occupancy rights. The 2nd respondent, the daughter-in-law of the original tenant, contended that her father-in-law was the original tenant and had occupancy rights. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the land is darmilla inam and consequently the land-holders are not entitled to patta under Section 15 of the Act. However, he held that the 2nd respondent has the occupancy rights and therefore she is entitled to the patta. The 1st respondent filed an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, which disallowed the appeal. The 1st respondent then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed. An appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition was also dismissed. The 1st respondent then filed an application under Section 56 of the Act for a declaration that he is the lawful ryot and not the 2nd respondent. The Assistant Settlement Officer held that the previous orders do not operate as res judicata and that the 1st respondent is the tenant having occupancy rights. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, which held that the previous orders bar the present proceedings under Section 56 of the Act. The 2nd respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the general principles of res judicata apply to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act, even though Section 64-A of the Act provides for the application of the rule of res judicata in only two cases. The Court further held that the previous orders in the writ petition and appeal did not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 56 of the Act, as the determination of a dispute under Section 11 in proceedings under Section 15 does not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 56.

Issues: 1. Whether the general principles of res judicata apply to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act? 2. Whether Section 64-A of the Estates Abolition Act is exhaustive in providing for the application of the rule of res judicata? 3. Whether the previous orders in the writ petition and appeal operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 56 of the Act? 4. Whether the determination of a dispute under Section 11 in proceedings under Section 15 operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 56?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The general principles of res judicata apply to proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act, even though Section 64-A of the Act provides for the application of the rule of res judicata in only two cases. 2. Section 64-A of the Estates Abolition Act is not exhaustive in providing for the application of the rule of res judicata. 3. The previous orders in the writ petition and appeal did not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings under Section 56 of the Act, as the determination of a dispute under Section 11 in proceedings under Section 15 does not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 56. 4. The determination of a dispute under Section 11 in proceedings under Section 15 does not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings under Section 56.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent, upholding the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer that the 1st respondent is the lawful ryot and not the 2nd respondent.