Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 273

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BISWAJIT BASU, J.
Sudip Singha Roy - Appellant
Versus
Chhayarani Singha Roy & Another - Respondent
S.M.A. No. 134 of 2012 & IA. No. CAN 02 of 2017 (Old CAN 10272 of 2017) (Not In File)
Decided On : 08-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Tanmoy Mukherjee, Kajal Ray, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Surendra Kumar Sharma, Advocates.

The principle of Res Judicata bars a party from relitigating a matter that has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - DEED OF GIFT - SECTION 11, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, SECTION 31(1) - Whether the challenge of the appellant to the validity and legality of the deed of gift executed by one Rabindranath Singha Roy, the donor of the deed of gift in favor of the decree holder/respondent is barred by the principles of Res Judicata?
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, claiming to be the son of the donor of a deed of gift, challenged the validity and legality of the deed of gift on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The respondent, the donee under the deed of gift, claimed that the appellant was barred from challenging the deed of gift due to the principle of Res Judicata, as the appellant's mother had already challenged the deed of gift in a previous suit and her challenge was unsuccessful.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant's challenge to the deed of gift was barred by the principle of Res Judicata. The court reasoned that the appellant was claiming the same right over the suit property as his mother had claimed in the previous suit, and that the grounds of challenge to the deed of gift were the same in both cases. The court further held that Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was not applicable in the present case, as the judgment in the previous suit was not a 'judgment in rem'.
Issues: Whether the appellant's challenge to the validity and legality of the deed of gift was barred by the principle of Res Judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of Res Judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to hold that the appellant's challenge to the deed of gift was barred. The court held that the appellant was claiming the same right over the suit property as his mother had claimed in the previous suit, and that the grounds of challenge to the deed of gift were the same in both cases. The court further held that Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was not applicable in the present case, as the judgment in the previous suit was not a 'judgment in rem'.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's challenge to the deed of gift was barred by the principle of Res Judicata.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant second miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 26, 2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special Court), District-Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 146 of 2008 thereby affirming the order no. 104 dated September 22, 2008 passed by the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandernagore, District-Hooghly in Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2007 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 26 of 1998.

2. The respondent no. 1 filed a suit in the Additional Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandernagore, District-Hooghly being Title Suit No. 170 of 1997 for eviction of the respondent no.2 from the suit property alleging that her husband Rabindra Nath Singha Roy was the owner of the suit property and he bequeathed it to her by a registered deed of gift, the respondent no. 2 was a licensee under her husband without license fees and after his death she permitted the respondent no. 2 to stay in the suit property on the same terms and conditions but on April 15, 1995 such license was revoked and the respondent no. 2 was asked to quit and vacate the suit property which she refused, hence the suit. The respondent no. 2 contested the said suit. She claimed that she is the legally married wife of the said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy and in their wedlock the appellant was born. She challenged the validity and legality of the said deed of gift on the grounds that it was obtained by practising fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and it was never executed by the said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy.

3. The said suit was decreed on July 30, 1998 with the findings that the respondent no. 1 has failed to prove her marriage with the said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy and also the birth of the appellant in the said wedlock. One specific issue being issue no. 5 whether the plaintiff has any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property was framed in the said suit. The said issue was answered in favour of the respondent no. 1 holding that execution of said deed of gift was duly proved and the same was acted upon as the respondent no. 1 on the basis of said deed of gift, has recorded her name in the record of rights of the suit property.

4. The respondent no. 2 aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 17 of 1999, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I at Chandernagore, by the judgment and decree dated November 30, 2004 dismissed the said appeal, thereby affirmed the findings of the first court against the said issue no. 5. The said appeal Court though did not approve the finding of the first court that the appellant is not the son of said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy but affirmed the finding of the learned Trial Judge that the respondent no. 2 has failed to prove her marriage with said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy.

5. The said decree was put into execution giving rise to Title Execution case No 26 of 1998. The appellant in the said execution case filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.05 of 2007. The appellant initially sought to resist the execution of the said decree on the ground that he cannot be evicted from the suit property on execution of the said decree as he has right to stay there as the son of the said Rabindra Nath Singha Roy. The appellant subsequently amended the said application to incorporate a further prayer that the decree under execution is not binding upon him as the deed of gift through which the respondent no. 1 is tracing her title over the suit property, was obtained by practising fraud upon his father.

6. The executing Court by the judgment and order dated September 22, 2008 dismissed the said miscellaneous case holding that to resist the claim of the decree holder, the petitioner is required to establish his title over the suit property; since the decree holder in the suit h