Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Maujiram Sahu - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Basanti Bai, Wd/o Late Budhram Sahu - Respondent
First Appeal No.197 of 2011
Decided On : 02-09-2022
res judicata - Property Dispute - Section 11 CPC, Section 12(1)(d) of the Accommodation Control Act - 9 SCC 99, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792, 6 SCC 733, AIR 2004 SC 2186 - The court discussed the application of res judicata in the context of property disputes and the necessary conditions for a matter to be considered directly and substantially in issue in a former suit. The court held that the present suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC as the previous suit did not directly or indirectly involve the question of the plaintiff's title over the suit house.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for vacant possession of a house and damages against the defendants. The suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that it was barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC as the previous suit did not directly or indirectly involve the question of the plaintiff's title over the suit house.
Issues: The main issue was whether the present suit was barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 CPC as the previous suit did not directly or indirectly involve the question of the plaintiff's title over the suit house.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the other issues and the civil suit on their merits in accordance with law and pass a fresh judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2010 passed by 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur in Civil Suit No.41A of 2006.
2. Plaintiff/Appellant Santosh Kumar Sahu filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.41A of 2006 before the Trial Court for vacant possession of the suit house and also for damages against the defendants/Respondents. Original defendant 1 Budhram Sahu died during pendency of the civil suit. Defendants 1-A to 1-E/Respondents 1 to 6 are legal representatives of deceased Budhram Sahu. Deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu and defendant 2 Smt. Motimbai are brother and sister of the father of the plaintiff, namely, Maujiram Sahu. The suit house bearing No.37/458/1 situated at Jawaharlal Nehru Ward No.37, Jorapara, Raipur was owned by Devantinbai, mother of original defendant 1 Budhram Sahu. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on 21.2.1997 Devantinbai executed a will (Ex.P2) in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the said will, after the death of Devantinbai, the plaintiff became owner of the suit house. His name is also mutated in the records of Municipal Corporation, Raipur. It was further pleaded that deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu was residing in another house situated at Jorapara itself. In the lifetime of Devantinbai itself, deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu was residing in the suit house with the consent of Devantinbai. After the death of Devantinbai, the plaintiff became owner of the suit house on the basis of the will (Ex.P2). Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded vacant possession of the suit house from deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu. Deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu requested that the plaintiff should provide him the suit house on rent @ Rs.500 per month. Thereafter, with the consent of the plaintiff, deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu was residing in the suit house as a licensee. Earlier, a suit was filed by the present plaintiff himself against deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between him and Budhram Sahu. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No.542A of 2004, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2006 (Ex.P18 and P19). After disposal of the suit, the plaintiff sent a legal notice (Ex.P14) to Budhram Sahu. Reply was sent by Budhram Sahu vide Ex.P17. Since Budhram Sahu did not vacate the suit house nor did he give possession of the suit house to the plaintiff, the instant suit has been preferred by the plaintiff for vacant possession of the suit house and for damages.
3. Deceased defendant 1 Budhram Sahu filed his written statement in which he pleaded that the suit house was made by his father Pardeshi Ram Sahu. The suit house is his ancestral property. There was no partition made between Devantinbai and other legal representatives of Pardeshi Ram Sahu. It was further pleaded that the will dated 21.2.1997 (Ex.P2) is a forged document. Devantinbai had no right to execute the said will as she was not an absolute owner of the suit house. It was further pleaded that in the previous suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.542A of 2004, the competent Court did not find the will dated 21.2.1997 duly proved, therefore, the subsequent suit on the basis of the same filed by the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has also not properly valued the suit and not affixed proper Court fee. Defendant 2 Smt. Motimbai also filed her written statement separately in which she supported the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as seven issues. After recording evidence of both the parties and after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties, vide the impugned judgment dated 5.10.2010, the Trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the suit preferred by the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of Se
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata in property disputes and the necessary conditions for a matter to be considered directly and substantially in issue....
The doctrine of res-judicata does not apply when the findings in a previous suit are incidental and do not directly address the ownership issue in a subsequent suit.
Object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial.
Possessory rights can be protected until evicted by the true owner, and earlier unexecuted decrees do not operate as res judicata.
The principle of res judicata applies when the same parties have litigated substantially the same issue in a previous suit, barring re-litigation of those issues.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
Trial courts must adjudicate all issues in a suit, and failure to do so violates procedural requirements under CPC, necessitating remand.
A dismissal of an earlier suit without merit does not preclude subsequent claims; the plea of adverse possession admits the owner's title.
The principle of res judicata applies where previous judgments on the same issue bind parties, regardless of claims involving part of the land. Judicial findings must reflect conscious application to....
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
