Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Das, J.
Gouri Shanker Singh
Versus
Ram Singhasan Singh
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 1990 of 1948 ;
Decided On : MAY 08, 1952
PARTITION - TITLE - ADMISSION OF NO TITLE BY PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST - EFFECT - RES JUDICATA - COMPETENCY OF COURT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, SEC. 11 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, claiming half share in a takhta, filed a suit for partition. They derived their title from Sk. Latif, who purchased the interest of Rampratap, one of the two brothers who owned the takhta. Rampratap had admitted in an ekrarnama that he had no title to nor possession of plot 1237, and a decision in Title Suit No. 38 of 1932 held that plot No. 1238 did not belong to him after the expiry of the thica.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellants had failed to prove their title to the property in respect of which they claimed partition. The admission made by Rampratap in the ekrarnama and the decision in Title Suit No. 38 of 1932 were binding on the appellants and barred their claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had title to the property in respect of which they claimed partition? 2. Whether the admission made by Rampratap in the ekrarnama and the decision in Title Suit No. 38 of 1932 were binding on the appellants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The entries in Register D and the khewats did not create any title in favor of the appellants. 2. The admission made by Rampratap in the ekrarnama and the decision in Title Suit No. 38 of 1932 were binding on the appellants, as they were made by a predecessor-in-interest and were relevant to the same subject matter. 3. The principle of res judicata, as embodied in Sec. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, applies even if the causes of action in the two suits are different, provided the matter directly and substantially in issue is the same and the parties are the same or litigating under the same title.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Das, J.
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for partition. By the suit, the appellants, who are two brothers, claimed partition of their half share in Khewat No. 1/17 of village Adampur Tarari, Patti Kalan, Tauzi No. B. No. 1. The case of the appellants was that khewat 1/17 represented a separate and distinct takhta of 6 dams, 13 cowries and odd interest in which the share of the appellants was 3 dams, 6 cowries and odd. The appellants claimed this share in the following way. It was alleged that there were two brothers called Modnarayan and Rampratap, and each of these two brothers had half share in the said takhta. The proprietary interest of Rampratap was sold in a certificate sale held on the 18th of September, 1933 and was purchased by one Sk. Latif Hussain. The sale certificate showed that 6 dams, 9 cowries and odd share in village Adampur Tarari, Patti Kalan, relating to tauzi B. No. 1, separate account No. 36, was sold to Sk. Latif. Latif in his turn sold the purchased interest to the appellants by means of a sale deed dated the 7th of December, 1933. The appellants asked for mutation of their names in Register D and were recorded in respect of 4 dams, 11 cowries and odd share. In the record of rights finally published in 1914, Rampratap and one Mahabir were recorded as owners of the khewat, the khewat being khewat No. 1/17 of khewat, Part II, of revenue free lands. Ramprataps interest was shown as 3 dams, 6 cowries and odd, and Mahabir Mahtos interest as 3 dams, 6 cowries and odd.
In 1912, the interest of Mahabir was given in thica to Rampratap for a term of five years, and in khewat Part III Rampratap was recorded as the thicadar in possession, Mahabir Mahto being shown as the landlord under whom the thicadar held. I may here state that the patti in question, namely khewat No. 1/17, comprised an area of 5.51 acres and there were three plots in the patti recorded in two holdings, holding No. 204 and holding No. 205; holding No. 204 was a holding of bakasht lands comprised in two plots, 1237 and 1238, 1237 having an area of 2.77 acres and 1238 an area of 2.64 acres. Holding No. 205 comprised of one plot only, plot No. 550, which was held by a raiyat on a small rent of Re. 1/- or so. On the strength of the entry made in Register D and the entries in the record of rights and on the basis of the purchase made by the appellants from Sk. Latif, the appellants founded their title and asked for partition on the plea that on the 30th of November, 1945, the respondents refused a demand for partition.
2. Three sets of written statements were filed, one by defendant No. 1, the second by defendant No. 3 and the third by defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6. The case of these defendants, who are respdts, before me, was that Mahabir Mahto alone was the owner of the khewat in question, and on the 19th of August, 1926, Mahabir transferred his interest by means of a sale deed to the respondents. Subsequently, there was a private partition as a result of which one of the respondents got plot No. 1238 and one bigha out of plot No. 1237 and another respondent got the remaining area of plot No. 1237. It was stated that the other respondents had no concern with the lands. It was also alleged that Rampratap Singh, who was a thicadar under Mahabir Mahto, got certain wrong entries made during the survey proceedings. On the 21st of June, 1924, Rampratap executed a deed of ekrarnama by which he admitted the mistakes which had been made in recording the interest of the parties in the survey proceedings and also admitted that plot No. 1237, with an area of 2.77 acres, was wrongly recorded in his name though the plot belonged to and was in possession of Mahabir Mahto. Subsequently, in 1932, there was a suit in the court of the Additional Munsif of Aurangabad in which the respondents were the plaintiffs and Rampratap Singh was a defendant. The suit related to the other plot, namely plot No. 1238, and it was held in the p
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
