Findings in a former suit operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties, even if the issues were not tried between the same parties in their individual capacities, but as representatives of the joint family.

Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - SALE OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - LEGAL NECESSITY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - LIMITATION ACT, ARTICLE 99 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER XXI RULE 63 - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 44 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 6: - Findings in a former suit operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties, even if the issues were not tried between the same parties in their individual capacities, but as representatives of the joint family. - Sale of joint family property by the Karta for legal necessity is binding on other coparceners, even if the sale proceeds are used to repay antecedent debts. - Adverse possession cannot be claimed by a Karta who continues to possess the joint family property after the sale, as his possession is not in his own right, but as a tenant or a trespasser. - A claim for redemption of a mortgage is barred by limitation under Article 99 of the Limitation Act if it is not filed within 60 years from the date of the mortgage. - A suit under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code is not a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties, as the Court's jurisdiction in such a suit is limited to examining whether the attachment was proper or not.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a member of a joint Hindu family, filed a suit for declaration that the suit property, a house and agricultural fields, was a joint family property and for redemption of a mortgage, partition, separate possession, and enquiry into mesne profit. The suit house was sold by the Karta of the joint family to Chimote in 1951. The agricultural fields were mortgaged to defendant No. 7 and later auctioned and sold to defendant No. 8. The trial Court dismissed the suit claims relating to partition, separate possession, redemption of mortgage, and mesne profit as barred by limitation. It decreed the claim for declaration that the suit house was a joint family property.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the findings in the former suit, in which Chimote had obtained a declaration that the suit house belonged to him and was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree against the Karta, operated as res judicata in the instant suit. The Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the findings in the former suit were not binding on him as he was not a party to that suit. The Court also held that the sale of the suit house was for legal necessity and that the plaintiff's claim for redemption of the mortgage was barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the findings in a former suit operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties, even if the issues were not tried between the same parties in their individual capacities, but as representatives of the joint family? 2. Whether the sale of joint family property by the Karta for legal necessity is binding on other coparceners, even if the sale proceeds are used to repay antecedent debts? 3. Whether adverse possession can be claimed by a Karta who continues to possess the joint family property after the sale, as his possession is not in his own right, but as a tenant or a trespasser? 4. Whether a claim for redemption of a mortgage is barred by limitation under Article 99 of the Limitation Act if it is not filed within 60 years from the date of the mortgage? 5. Whether a suit under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties, as the Court's jurisdiction in such a suit is limited to examining whether the attachment was proper or not?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the findings in the former suit operated as res judicata in the instant suit because the issues were between the same parties, even though they were not tried between the same parties in their individual capacities. The plaintiff, as a member of the joint family, was litigating under the same title as the Karta in the former suit. 2. The Court held that the sale of the joint family property by the Karta for legal necessity was binding on other coparceners, even if the sale proceeds were used to repay antecedent debts. The Court found that the debts were independent and had no proximity in any manner with the sale and as such, they were antecedent and hence, binding on other coparceners. 3. The Court held that adverse possession could not be claimed by the Karta who continued to possess the joint family property after the sale, as his possession was not in his own right, but as a tenant or a trespasser. The Court found that the Karta had not asserted any title in himself until 1959 and that he had paid rent to Chimote after the sale. 4. The Court held that the claim for redemption of the mortgage was barred by limitation under Article 99 of the Limitation Act as it was not filed within 60 years from the date of the mortgage. 5. The Court held that a suit under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code was not a bar to a subsequent suit between the same parties, as the Court's jurisdiction in such a suit was limited to examining whether the attachment was proper or not.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the first appeal and set aside the decree of the trial Court granting a declaration that the suit house still belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The Court dismissed the claim to that extent. The Court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the decree dismissing the rest of the claim in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1972 relating to partition, possession, and redemption. The Court partly allowed the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth appeals and remitted the matters back to the Civil Court to decide the suit claim for possession and damages afresh in the light of the findings recorded by the High Court.

JUDGEMENT - A.A. Desai, J.:---These appeals are directed against a judgment and decree dated 25-1-1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. They are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. The litigation has chequred history. It also carries intricate questions of facts and law. Relevant for the purposes of adjudication is thus :

One Balkrishna Bodhankar acquired the suit property, namely, house at Amravati and agricultural field at Mouza Rahatgaon. In 1918, he died. His son Shankarrao (defendant No. 1) took the possession and management of the suit property on behalf of Hindu undivided family which consisted of self and sons - Deodatta (plaintiff), Jagdish (defendant No. 3) and Jaiprakash (defendant No. 4).

On 24-1-1951, Shankarrao entered into agreement to sell suit house in favour of Chimotes. On 14-3-1951, one Dhapubai, in execution of decree obtained against Shankarrao (defendant No. 1), attached the suit house and put to auction. On 9-7-1951, Shankarrao pursuant to the agreement vide Exh. 230, executed a Deed of Sale for total consideration of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of Chimote.

Defendant No. 6 Chimote filed Civil Suit No. 13-A/53 purported to be under Order XXI Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Dhapubai and Shankarrao. He sought declaration that suit house belonged to him and not liable to be attached and sold. On 21-6-1956, the suit house was auctioned and the sale was confirmed in favour of Nathu Bhedaji. He was, therefore, impleaded as a co-defendant. On 30-11-1956, the trial Court decreed the suit claim of Chimotes, which ultimately, on 8-2-1967, was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

In 1969, defendant No. 6 Chimote (purchaser) filed various civil suits against occupants of the suit house for recovery of possession and damages. Shankarrao (defendant No. 1) was impleaded in all these suit proceedings.

As regards suit fields, defendant No. 1 Shankarrao mortgaged the same with a condition of sale with defendant No. 7 Shingore. For realisation of Government dues, the suit fields were auctioned and on 22-6-1960, sale was confirmed in favour of defendant No. 8 Dr. Kuthe.

3. On 24-4-1949, plaintiff was born to defendant No. 1 Shankarrao. In 1970, he attained majority. According to him, alienation of the suit property was not for legal necessity, but to satisfy the Ayayahrik debts. He, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No. 20/72. He did not claim setting aside of alienation of suit property by Shankarrao, but sought composite declaration that suit property is a joint family. He also claimed redemption of mortgage, partition, separate possession and enquiry into mesne profit.

The Civil Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the suit claim relating to partition, separate possession, redemption of mortgage and mesne profit by holding the same as beyond the period or limitation in view of Article 99 or the Limitation Act. The learned Judge has also rejected the plea of Ayayahrik debt and want of legal necessity for sale of suit house. He held in answer to issue No. 11 that defendant No. 1 Shankarrao proved that sale dated 9-7-1951 in favour of Chimote was nominal and not to be acted upon. The learned Judge in paras 17 to 28 while answering issue Nos. 9 and 10 further held that alienator Shankarrao proved that decree dated 30-11-1956 in the former suit No. 13-A/1953 was obtained in collusion and he did not contest the litigation against Dhapubail. In answer to issue No. 7, the learned Judge held that the findings in the former suit do not operate as res judicata. Accordingly, the learned Judge decreed the claim of declaration that the suit house was a joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4. In view of this declaration, the learned Judge dismissed the various suits filed by Chimotes for recovery of possession. Hence, these appeals.

4. The main question involved in these appeals to which the parties have addressed at length, is whether the findings in a f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis