The principle of issue estoppel applies to prevent the relitigation of issues that have been conclusively determined by competent Courts/fora, in order to have certainty in legal proceedings and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Subrata Talukdar, J.

1. By filing the present CO 2726 of 2013 the petitioners challenge the order impugned dated 9th July, 2013 passed by the Learned Second Civil Court (Senior Division) at Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal 201 of 2011.

By the said impugned order the Learned Second Civil Court (Senior Division) was pleased to decide an application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By filling the said application the present petitioners who are also the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012, prayed for substitution of the legal heirs of the appellant namely, Shanti Devi alias Mahato (since deceased).

The said legal heirs of the deceased appellant were stated to be Gobinda Mahato, Bhagabati Mahato, Mamta Mahato and Gita Mahato. The proposed substituted legal heirs had pointed out before the Learned Appellate Court that the late Shanti Devi/appellant died on 30th of January 2012. In support of their claim to be the legal heirs of the Late Shanti Devi, the proposed substituted appellants have filed copies of their Voter Identity Cards.

Before the Learned Appellate Court the Learned Counsel for the present opposite parties/respondents objected to such substitution on the ground that in another proceeding between the parties the Learned First Assistant District Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987 arising from the judgment and order in Title Suit No. 53 of 1986 had specifically held that the petitioners/proposed substituted appellants are not the legal heirs of the original tenant, one Kalkatia Mahato.

According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondents the proposed substituted applicants in the present Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012 have been held by the Learned Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987 to be the legal heirs of only Shanti Devi and not Kalkatia Mahato. It was pointed out before the Learned Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012 that the present opposite parties/respondents have jointly filed suit for eviction against the original tenant, Kalkatia Mahato and one Baburam Mahato, son of Kalkatia Mahato. Kalkatia Mahato died during pendency of the proceedings and was substituted by Shanti Devi, his widow.

In respect of the eviction suit, being Title Suit No. 53 of 1986, Shanti Devi preferred Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987 and, in the said Title Appeal the Learned Appellate Court specifically held that Baburam Mahato and Shanti Devi are the only legal heirs of the late Kalkatia Mahato.

In respect of the present petitioners/proposed substituted appellants the Learned Appellate Court in Title Appeal 182 of 1987 came to the clear finding that the legal heirs of Late Shanti Devi are not from her marriage with the late Kalkatia Mahato. In other words, the present petitioners may be the sons and daughters of the late Shanti Devi out of a separate marriage. However, their father is not the late Kalkatia Mahato. It was further pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the present opposite parties/respondents before the Learned Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012 that against such decision of the Learned Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987, no further appeal was preferred by the present petitioners. The judgment of the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987 is a judgment in rem and has attained finality. The findings in the said judgment in Title Appeal 182 of 1987 shall apply with full force to the present Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012.

Upon consideration of the rival submissions the learned appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 201 of 2012 came to the following conclusions:-

I) That on perusal of the judgment in Title Appeal No. 182 of 1987 there is to be found mention of the legal heirs of the late Kalkatia Mahato. The petitioners are found to be the legal heirs of the late Shanti Devi who is simply a substituted tenant in the suit property after the death of Kalkatia Mahato.

II) It is difficult to presume that the legal he