IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
Friendship Helping Hands Society and Another – Petitioners
Versus
H. Lalthanzauva and Another – Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 11 - Loan – Repayment – Interest - Case of appellants is that respondent No. 1 had approached appellants for a loan totaling Rs. 13.5 lakhs on different occasions - Accordingly, appellants had given a loan only on three different dates starting to respondent No. 1, which was to be repaid with interest @ 10% per annum- Respondent No. 1 had morgaged LSC No. as security for loan, with permission of owner of LSC No. i.e. respondent No. 2 - Whether prayer of the appellants for repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs with interest @ 10% per month from till final payment is hit by res judicata – Held, Court is of the view that bar of res judicata would not apply with respect to the prayer of appellants in respect of their claim for repayment of loan amount - Impugned Judgment dated passed by Court of Senior Civil Judge-III, in Civil Suit No.is hereby aside, only to extent that bar of res judicata would not apply to prayer of appellants claiming repayment of loan amount from respondents - Case is accordingly remanded back to learned Trial Court, which might have to frame an issue with regard to whether any loan amount had been given to the respondents by appellants and whether respondents are liable to repay the same - Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. This regular first appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 41/2009, by which the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The case of the appellants is that the respondent No. 1 had approached the appellants for a loan totaling Rs. 13.5 lakhs on different occasions. Accordingly, the appellants had given a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand) only on three different dates starting from 24.09.2007 to the respondent No. 1, which was to be repaid with interest @ 10% per annum. The respondent No. 1 had morgaged LSC No. 321/1976 as security for the loan, with the permission of the owner of the LSC No. 321/1976 i.e. the respondent No. 2.
3. As the respondent No. 1 could not repay the loan amount, one Mr. H. Lalremthanga S/o Thanghlira, Khatla filed Eviction Suit No. 2/2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District against the respondent No. 2, praying for eviction of the respondent No. 2 from the land covered by LSC No. 321/1976. In Eviction Suit No. 2/2008, the respondent No. 2 was the sole defendant. The case of Sh. H. Lalremthanga was that as the respondent No. 1 had allowed the property to be mortgaged as security for the loan given to the respondent No. 1, the said property became the property of the plaintiff Sh. H. Lalremthanga, as the loan was not repaid by the respondent No. 1. In fact, LSC No. 321 of 1976 had been mutated in the name of the plaintiff Sh. H. Lalremthanga by the State Government. The plaintiff Sh. H. Lalremthanga was also the Secretary of Friendship Helping Hands Society (Appellant No. 1) which had given the loan amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs to the respondent No. 1.
4. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl disposed of Eviction Suit No. 2/2008, vide Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2008, by holding that the respondent No. 2 had borrowed the money from the plaintiff and mortgaged his landed property. As such, the plaintiff Sh. H. Lalremthanga was found to be the rightful owner of the landed property. The respondent No. 2 was accordingly directed to vacate the land and building covered by LSC No. 321/1976.
5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2008 passed in Eviction Suit No. 2/2008, the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal i.e. RFA No. 1/2009 before the Court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl. The First Appellate Court thereafter allowed RFA No. 1/2009, vide Judgment dated 05.06.2009, by holding that mutation of the LSC from the respondent No. 2 to Sh. H. Lalremthanga was not justified. It also held that opportunity to contest the suit should have been given to the respondent No. 2 by the learned Trial Court. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court was thereafter set aside.
6. The Judgment dated 05.06.2009 passed by the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl has attained finality as on date, as no appeal has been filed against the said Judgment passed in RFA No. 1/2009.
7. Subsequent to the above events, the appellants filed Civil Suit No. 41/2009 against the respondents praying for the following reliefs:
(ii) For a decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the legal and rightful owners of the land and building covered by LSC No. 321 of 1976 located at Chaltlang, Aizawl.
(iii) For a decree declaring that the plaintiffs have the right to peaceful and vacant possession of the land and building covered by LSC No. 321 of 1976 located at Chaltlang, Aizawl.
OR
For a decree declaring that the defendants are both jointly and severall
Bondar Singh and Others vs. Nihal Singh and Others
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited vs. State of Haryana and Another
The defendant should be given the opportunity to present defense evidence, and the Trial Court's procedure should adhere to the normal course followed in adjudicating civil disputes.
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....
Valid property transfers require registration, especially when rights are extinguished, and failure to comply renders transactions void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata under Section 11 CPC and Order 14 Rule 2(2) CPC in property disputes.
The principle of res judicata applies only when the parties, issues, and cause of action are identical.
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.