2015 Supreme(Cal) 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
Laxmi Housing Udyog Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
Sharad Subramanyan and Others – Respondent
C.O. No. 4175 of 2013 With C.O. No. 4176 of 2013 and C.O. No. 4177 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2015

A suit is barred by res judicata if the same matter is directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court of jurisdiction competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Headnote:

RES JUDICATA - SUIT BARRED - WILL - PROBATE - REVERSIONARY LEGATEES - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14 - MAINTENANCE - LIFE ESTATE - ABSOLUTE ESTATE - JURISDICTION OF PROBATE COURT - TITLE - ORDER 7 RULE 11 C.P.C - INTERPRETATION - ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) C.P.C - SUIT BARRED BY RES JUDICATA - LIMITED INTEREST OF WIDOW - DISMISSAL OF SUIT.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed three suits for protection of their alleged rights as Owners/Lessees or Trustees in respect of each individual Floor which is the subject matter of each the three separate suits, of the three-storied premises located at No. 13/1 Promotesh Barua Sarani, Calcutta - 700 019. They had sought negative declarations to the effect that the defendant No. 1 had no manner of right, title and interest in the said premises on the basis of any instruments or conveyance deeds executed in its favour by the other defendants who are the reversionary legatees of the Will of the deceased original owner namely K. K. Mitra. The basis of the claim raised by the plaintiffs in relation to their own right, title and interest is contained in the following identical plea in paragraph No. 10 of the plaint in each of the aforesaid three Title Suits, which is set out as follows:- "10. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs state that Reba Mitra after she acquired the said premises, held the same as full owner thereof and not as limited owner inter alia by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs therefore, state that Reba Mitra since deceased was the absolute owner of the said Premises and could deal with the same in any manner she so desired."

Finding of the Court:

The suits were rejected by the learned Civil Judge after observing inter alia- "In view of the discussions, I am of the opinion that on plain and meaningful reading of the plaint it cannot be ascertained whether the suit is barred by res judicata. Nevertheless, the materials cited by the defendant No. 1 appear to be relevant in this suit. As such, at the time of framing of the issues, the point as to whether the suit is barred by res judicata shall have to be framed for proper adjudication of the suit. Hence it is Ordered The application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P. Code filed by the defendant No. 1 is hereby rejected on contest without costs."

Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? 2. Whether the widow had a limited interest for her lifetime in the disputed properties? 3. Whether the widow could confer a right upon a third party which would extend beyond her own interest?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court observed that the dismissal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C Act by observing that the documents relied upon by the defendants could not be looked into in relation to an application under Order 7, Rule 11, would appear to be too simplistic and erroneous. 2. The Court held that the observations of the Division Bench of this Court or the Supreme Court regarding the alleged incompetence of Reba Mitra to convey the property in their favour on the ground that her own interest therein was limited only for her lifetime, has no bearing in the Suits as the same were made in the course of proceedings arising out of Testamentary/Probate jurisdiction. 3. The Court held that the decision against the plaintiff Sharad Subramanyam or the Company "Taxation Service Syndicate Pvt. Ltd." operated through the said Sharad Subramanyam & Ors, were all pronounced in proceedings arising out of a probate matter, and so the benches concerned were not competent to decide the substantive question of title such as the alleged incompetence of deceased Reba Mitra to transfer the properties. 4. The Court held that the Will of K.K. Mitra actually was meant to transfer absolute right, title and interest in favour of his widow after his death in lieu of her entitlement to maintenance, and was therefore covered by Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the Learned Court below is set aside and the three pending suits stand dismissed as being barred by the principles of res judicata in view of the categorical decisions of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28th of June 2000 in APOT No. 256 of 2000, and of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4153 SLP No. of 2002, decided on 28th April, 2006.