ARUN BHANSALI
Jethu Singh – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, Ajmer – Respondent
The legal document discusses the principle of res judicata in the context of connected suits that are tried together and decided by a common judgment. It emphasizes that when two suits are consolidated and a single judgment is issued, the finality of the decision in one suit, in the absence of an appeal, renders any subsequent appeal against the other suit's findings barred by res judicata (!) (!) (!) .
The document clarifies that separate decrees are often issued in consolidated cases, but the key factor is whether the issues and findings are interconnected and whether the judgment covers both suits comprehensively. If only one decree is challenged through an appeal, and the other remains unchallenged, the unchallenged decree's finality prevents further proceedings on related issues, thus operating as res judicata (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the document discusses the importance of filing appeals against all adverse decrees in connected suits. Failure to do so results in the unchallenged decree becoming final, which then precludes the filing of subsequent appeals or proceedings on the same issues. This principle is reinforced by the understanding that a judgment in one connected suit, once final, effectively bars relitigation of the same issues in other suits, even if they were decided together (!) (!) .
The document also highlights that procedural rules and principles of res judicata are grounded in ensuring finality and preventing conflicting judgments. It underscores that the non-filing of an appeal against a connected suit's decree, especially when the suits are tried together or involve common issues, leads to the conclusion that the unchallenged decree is res judicata, and further proceedings on the same issues are barred (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, when connected suits are decided by a common judgment, and only one appeal is filed against one of the decrees, the finality of the unchallenged decree prevents subsequent appeals or proceedings concerning the same issues, thereby upholding the doctrine of res judicata and ensuring judicial consistency and finality (!) (!) (!) .
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.1996 passed by the SDO, Ratangarh (Churu), judgment dated 23.9.1999 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner (‘RAA’) and judgment dated 27.12.1999 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (‘the Board’), whereby the suit filed by the petitioners has been rejected; cross suit filed by the respondents No.5 & 6 has been decreed; appeal and second appeal filed by the petitioners have been rejected respectively.
2. The petitioners filed suit No.10/1991 for ejectment of respondents No.5 & 6 from land comprised in khasra No.145min ad measuring 3 Bigha 5 Biswa. The respondents No.5 & 6 filed a cross suit No.11/1991 for declaration and permanent injunction.
3. After written statements were filed in both the suits and issues were framed, the suits were consolidated and parties led their evidence.
4. The S.D.O. by its judgment dated 20.7.1996, recorded findings on the issues raised in both the suits and the suit filed by the petitioners for ejectment and possession was dismissed. The suit filed by the respondents No.5 & 6 for declaration and injunction was decreed. A decree dated 20.7.1996 was framed by the S.D.O. indicat
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.