Rajasthan High Court
Wanchoo C.J. & Dave, J.
Deeplal - Appellant
Versus
Secy., Shri Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya - Respondents
Civil First Appeal No. 64 of 1951
Decided On : October 20, 1955
PDJV and AJM filed counter suits against each other both claiming ownership and possession of the disputed land, each praying that the other be restrained from making any encroachment. The first suit was filed by PDJV on 16-1-1946 in the court of Civil Judge Udaipur and, subsequently, the second suit was filed by AJM on 8-3-1946 in the court of Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur. Proceedings in the second suit were stayed by the court till disposal of the first case by PDJV. The first case was decided by the Civil Judge in favour of PDJV and an appeal against that decision was duly filed before this Court. Because of the decision in the first case, an objection was raised by the defendant in the second case that the suit was barred by Res Judicata and, therefore, on the 11th of March, 1953, an issue was framed in the following words—
"Whether this suit is barred by res judicata?"
On the 25th of May, 1953, this issue was decided by the court in the defendants favour and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. No appeal has been filed against this judgment in this Court. But it is on the basis of this judgment that the respondents advocate has urged that the appeal before us is barred by res judicata. It is contended that the main issues in both the cases were the same and since the appellants suit was dismissed, they should have brought an appeal against that judgment and since the decree in the second case has not been appealed against, it has become final and this Court should not, therefore,here the appeal in the first case because if it comes to a contrary decision, there would be two inconsistent decrees. (Paras 3 and 4)
Held that the Addl. Civil Judge should not have gone into the matter when it was brought to his notice that an appeal against the judgment in the first suit was pending in this Court. He should have kept the case pending and waited for the decision of this Court. (Para 6)
The Additional Civil Judge, while dismissing the suit, thought rightly or wrongly that his decision would be automatically set aside if the appellants in the appeal before us would be successful. Such a decision which is subject to the decision of this Court is not a final decision as contemplated by sec. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 7)
In the second case, it was contended, in the trial court, by the respondents before us, that since there has been a decision in the first case, they should not be vexed over twice and it was on that ground that the appellants suit was got dismissed by them. Now, they cannot with any justification turn round and argue in the appeal before us that the decision in the second case is res judicata. That would be arguing in a circle and it would end in a travesty of justice if it is allowed to stand.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents learned advocate to the effect that the appeal is barred by res judicata and, therefore, it is prayed that it should be dismissed on that ground alone.
3. In order to appreciate the respondents contention, it seems necessary to state the relevant facts briefly. In the city of Udaipur in Mohalla Dhan Mandi, there is a Jain temple of Sumatinath belonging to the Agarwal Jain community which is represented in the present case by the appellants. On the back side of this temple, there is a school which is called Shri Parshwanath Digambar Jain Vidyalaya. In between the building of the said temple and (he school i.e. on the back and the two sides of the temple, other than the front side, there is vacant land and that is the subject of dispute between the parties. On the 16th of January, 1946, Shri Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalay Society through its General Secretary, Shri Gulabchand son of Shivlal Taya brought a suit which has given rise to the present appeal. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the land, whose boundaries were given in the plaint, was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, that the defendants were trying to make illegal encroachment on its Chowk and Chabutra, that on the southern side near the temple the defendants had constructed a room for Pujari and were further going to construct some Tibaris, that on the western side adjoining the wall of the temple, the defendants had dug out the ground without the plaintiffs permission, that on the northern side, the defendants had removed some stones from the Chowk and, therefore, it was prayed that the defendants should be directed, to remove the buildings which they had constructed, to fill up the pits which they had dug out to level the ground, and that they should be from making any encroachment on the plaintiffs property in future. In the suit, as originally instituted, only seven persons were impleaded as defendants, but later on five more were added at their own request on 8th of March, 1946. On the 4th of May, 1947, Heeralal and Tolaram filed a counter representative suit on behalf of Samast Panch Jain Agarwal residents of Udaipur City against Shri Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya Society through its General Secretary Gulab Chand. It was asserted by the plaintiffs in that case that the land all around the temple belonged to the plaintiffs, that some of that land was given away to the Sakal Digamber Jain Panchas by a Bhet Patra in Samvat year 1982, that the said document was void and illegal, that the defendants had constructed certain buildings, but the open land on the back and sides of the temple i.e. on the western, northern and southern sides of the temple was still in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs, that the defendants were trying to make encroachment on the said land by constructing some drains and, therefore, it was prayed that a declaratory decree be given to the effect that the land on three sides of the temple was in the possession of the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from making encroachment on the disputed land, Thus, both the parties filed counter suits against each other. Both of them claimed ownership and possession of the disputed land and prayed that the other be restrained from making any encroachment. It appears that issues were framed in the second suit also, but later on, the proceedings therein, were stayed till the disposal of the first case. As mentioned above, the first case was decided in favour of Shri Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya Society by the Civil Judge, Udaipur district on 25th September, 1951. The second suit No. 48 of 1952 was pending in the court of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur. It appears that because of the dec
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.