The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in the context of two separate decrees arising from a single judgment, and the finality of the decree in the Original Suit in barring the appeal from the decree in the Original Petition.

CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree in Original Petition (L. A. C.) No. 76 of 1951 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara. That petition arose on a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment among the claimants of the compensation awarded for acquiring 79 cents of land in T. S. No. 265 in Mangalore Town. The learned Subordinate Judge held that respondents-claimants 11 to 18 were solely entitled to the entire compensation, Feeling aggrieved by that decision, claimants 2, 4 to 7 and 19 have preferred this appeal impleading Claimants 11 to 18 as respondents.

( 2 ) AT the hearing of the appeal Mr. K. R. D. Karanth, learned counsel for respondents, raised the following two preliminary objections to the appeal:

(i) The appeal is barred by the principle of res judicata, as the appellants did not appeal from the decree in the suit which was decided along with the Original petition by a common judgment; and (ii) The entire appeal abated on the death of appellant No. 5, Vedavathi, whose legal representatives have not been brought on record.

( 3 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to consider these two preliminary objections because, if either of them is upheld, the appeal must fail and it would be unnecessary to go into the merits of the appeal.

( 4 ) MR. K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Karanth addressed elaborate arguments on these preliminary objections.

( 5 ) WE shall now consider the first preliminary objection. It is common ground that in the original Petition and in the Original Suit the parties are common and the main issues are also common. Those issues relate to the title to the suit land which was acquired. The apportionment of the compensation for this land is the subject matter of the Original Petition. Though there was a common judgment in these two proceedings, there were two separate decrees, one in the original Suit and the other in the Original Petition. The appellants have not preferred any appeal from the decree in the Original Suit, which is against them.

( 6 ) MR. Karanth, argued that the decree in the Original Suit, against which no appeal has been filed, has become final and operates as res judicata in regard to the present appeal and hence the present appeal is barred and should be dismissed in limine.

( 7 ) AS stated by the Supreme Court in Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banarnali Sen, AIR1953 SC 33 , [1953 ]4 SCR154 the principles underlying Section 11, Civil P. C. , are applicable even when the case does not fall within the strict terms of that Section.

( 8 ) WHERE two proceedings involving common issues are disposed of in one judgment and an appeal is filed against the decree in one and not in the other, the question whether the matter decided in the latter proceedings, becomes res judicata so that it cannot be reopened in the appeal, is one on which there is no decision of this Court (the High Court of the New State of mysore ). On this question there is a conflict of decisions of different High Courts. Each learned counsel referred to certain observations of the Supreme Court as supporting his respective contention.

( 9 ) MR. Shivashankar Ehat, strongly relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Narhari v. Shanker, AIR1953 SC 419 , [1950 ]1 SCR754. There, the plaintiffs claimed 1/3 of certain properties from one set of defendants, i. e. , defendants 1 to 4 and another 1/3 from another set of defendants, i. e. , defendants 5 to 8. The trial Court decreed the suit. Each set of defendants filed a separate appeal claiming 1/3 of the properties. The first Appellate Court allowed both the appeals and dismissed the plaintiff's suit by one judgment and ordered a copy of the judgment to be placed in the file of the other connected appeal. The plaintiffs thereafter brought before the High Court two appeals one against the decree in the appeal filed by defendants 1 to 4 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document