Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Baratkunwar w/o. Kashiram Aghariya - Appellant
Vs.
Dular Singh S/o Chholtelal Aghariya - Respondent
SA No. 222 of 2009
Decided On : 14-09-2022
res judicata - Civil Procedure - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [res judicata] - [Property Dispute] - [Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963] - [Khasra No. 399/1, 305/1, 709/1, 1134/1, 1707/1, 2030/2] - The judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/87 dated 26-10-1993 is not binding upon the plaintiff as the plaintiff was not party to the Civil Suit No. 8A/87, and the defendant Barat Kunwar has not claimed over the property of the plaintiff. The subsequent suit filed by Dular Singh is not barred by res judicata. The suit for title and possession is maintainable as the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and has title holder. The suit is not hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by reversing finding of the trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession, and declaration that subsequent judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/1987 dated 26.10.1993 is not binding upon the plaintiff. The defendants denied the allegations and genealogy submitted by the plaintiffs, contending that the suit property mentioned in Schedule -A belongs to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land.
Finding of the Court:
The learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal by recording its finding that the plaintiff was not party to the Civil Suit No. 8A/87 dated 26-10-1993, therefore, the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/87 is not binding upon the plaintiff. The learned Appellate Court also recorded a finding that since the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit is not binding upon the plaintiff, they have filed the suit for declaring the order dated 17-04-2000 passed by the Tehsildar to be null and void. The suit was filed on 02-11-2000 when by the order dated 17.04.2000 the Khasra No. 399/1, 305/1, 709/1, 1134/1, 1070/1, and 2030/2 have been recorded in the name of defendants No. 1 & 2. This was the date of information which was received by them, therefore, the suit is within limitation. The learned Appellate Court has also recorded the finding that as per the application submitted by the defendant-Pokhram and Exh.P/19, the land bearing Khasra No. 1134/1, 2030/2, and 743/1 belongs to Dular Singh and others as well as amended record Ext. P/5 and Kishtabandi Khatauni (Exh. P/ 3 & P/15), the suit property is in title of the plaintiffs and it is in their possession and since when their father was alive and after division of accounts on 25-09-1979 till today, as such, the suit for title and possession is maintainable and accordingly, the first Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/87 dated 26-10-1993 is binding upon the plaintiff and whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and their suit is maintainable and not hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/87 dated 26-10-1993 is not binding upon the plaintiff as the plaintiff was not party to the Civil Suit No. 8A/87, and the defendant Barat Kunwar has not claimed over the property of the plaintiff. The subsequent suit filed by Dular Singh is not barred by res judicata. The suit for title and possession is maintainable as the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and has title holder. The suit is not hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by reversing finding of the trial Court.
Final Decision: The second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier by this Court on 29.04.2009 stands vacated.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant/defendant No.1 has filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-01-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 2-12-2003 passed by the F Civil Judge, Class-2, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2002.
2. This appeal was admitted on 9-10-2015 by this court on the following substantial question of law.
“Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court that the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No,. 8A/87 dated 26-10-1993 is not binding to the plaintiffs is perverse?”.
Thereafter, on 20-2-2020 following additional substantial question of law is framed by this court.
“Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and their suit is maintainable and not hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by reversing finding of the trial Court?”.
3. The brief facts as reflected from the records are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before Civil Judge, Class II, Raigarh for declaration of title, possession and declaration that subsequent judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 8A/1987 dated 26.10.1993 is not binding upon the plaintiff mainly contending that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 belong to one family and genealogy tree was also described in the plaint. It has been contended that the land bearing Khasra No.29 area 18.20 dismil, situated at village Timralaga, Patwari Halka No.28, Tahsil Sagangarh, District Raigarh is jointly owned by the plaintiff’s father Chhotelal and elder uncle Jhaduram. The plaintiffs’ uncle died in the year 1973, therefore, legal representatives namely defendants No.1 and 2 have taken the land in their possession. The partition between the plaintiffs’ father and father of defendants No. 1 and 2 has taken place prior to 50 years, according to their partition, they are in possession of their respective shares, though partitions were taken place in the year 1979, the properties were recorded jointly in the revenue record. It has been further contended that after partition, plaintiffs’ father is in possession of the suit property, he died prior to 12 years, therefore, being legal representatives of their father, they are utilizing the land and doing the agricultural work. They are in possession of the suit property peacefully. The suit property has been described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The defendant No.2 after partition with plaintiff's father prior to 1979 was already separated after taking his share which has been described in Schedule-C of the plaint and executed sale deed on 14-8-1978. It has been contended that after partition of plaintiffs’ father Chhotelal and defendants No. 1 and 2 property which has been given to defendant No.4 has been adjusted by the defendants No.1 and 2 in their account. It has also been contended that after partition, the defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the property to defendant No.3 who is wife of defendant No.2, fraudulently separated revenue records and presently the defendants No. 1 and 2 are having less property in the land account.
4. It has been contended that the defendant No.2 without consent of defendant No.1 has filed a civil suit for partition for the property described in Schedule-B of the plaint before Civil Judge, Class II, Sarangarh which was registered as Civil Suit No.8A/87. The learned Civil Judge, Class-II, decided the said civil suit on 26-10- 1993, wherein decree was passed and according to which defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled to get half of the share of the suit property. It has also been decided in the suit that the defendant No.2 is affected by transfer deed dated 14-08-1978, 26-09-1979 and 9-01-1987, against which the appeal was preferred which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. Defendant No.1 in pursuance of t
AI
The subsequent suit filed by Dular Singh is not barred by res judicata. The suit for title and possession is maintainable as the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and has title holder. The....
The findings of a prior suit are not binding on parties not involved in that suit, emphasizing res judicata principles and the necessity of a fair hearing.
The onus lies on the person claiming right, title, and interest to prove the title by producing the necessary documents.
Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.
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
