Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 1076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Soghra Bibi and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sulema Khatoon and ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No.103 of 1999(R)
Decided On : 16-05-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Deep, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate
Recognition of legal heirs' shares must honor prior judicial determinations, preventing contradictions in ownership rights.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II, Rule 2 - Res Judicata - Second Appeal against reversal of decree in Title Suit for redemption of mortgage. The trial court recognized the plaintiffs as legal heirs entitled to 2/3rd share of property based on previous decree. The appellate court's findings contradicted established rights from prior litigation. (Paras 17-22)
(B) Legal heirs - The court reaffirmed the principle that the recognition of legal heirs and their respective shares must be honored as per prior decrees. (Par 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed for redemption of a mortgage executed by their father. The property was sold by one heir without consent, leading to contested ownership.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree recognizing the plaintiffs' 2/3rd interest is affirmed; appellate court's ruling is reversed.
Issues: The primary issues pertain to the application of res judicata and the rights of parties following prior judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellate court erred by not applying res judicata principles regarding the plaintiffs' rights as established in earlier litigation.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background and ownership claims of the property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. defendants' arguments regarding ownership and legality. (Para 7 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. trial court's findings on ownership and shares. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. appellate court's reasoning regarding res judicata. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. analysis of earlier judgments and their implications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. This Second Appeal is against judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No.8 of 1986.
2. Parties shall be referred to by their original placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted at different stages.
3. Appellants are plaintiffs who brought the Title Suit No.29 of 1977 for redemption of mortgage bond dated 13.09.1969 detailed in Schedule A by Defendant No.1, and in default for a decree with respect of 2/3rd share. The suit was decreed and reversed in appeal.
4. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Schedule-A properties belonged to Abdul Rahim. Abdul Rahim died on 31.05.1970 leaving behind Plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 + proforma defendant no. 2 (total three daughters). The suit property was a house which had been mortgaged by their father to Defendant No.1.
5. That in the year 1974, plaintiffs came to know for the first time that defendant no. 1 had purchased the suit property from Defendant No.2 by a registered deed on 24.11.1970, later he (D1) filed Title Suit No. 336 of 1972 against defendant no. 2 (Jubeda Khatoon) alone showing defendant no. 2 to be only legal heir of Abdul Rahim and obtained an ex-parte decree on 09.07.1973 and in Execution Case No. 204 of 1973, he took delivery of possession with respect to Schedule-A land.
6. That in Title Suit No. 336 of 1972 filed by defendant no. 1 falsely alleged that only daughter of Abdul Rahim namely, Jubeda Khatoon showed her inability to pay the mortgage amount and therefore, executed a sale deed with respect to entire Schedule-A property on 24.11.1970.
7. It is further stated that all the transactions between the defendant nos.1 and 2 were false and fabricated. Even assuming that Jubeda Khatoon had sold Schedule- A land by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1970 then at best, she was only entitled to transfer her 1/3rd share as there were three legal heirs of Late Abdul Rahim.
8. It is further stated that coming to know about the said sale deed executed by Jubeda Khatoon (defendant no. 2) in favour of defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 16/1974, in which, they prayed for a decree for declaration that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 jointly have got 2/3rd interest in Schedule-A property and their interest have not been affected by the sale executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 and for recovery of possession of 2/3rd share of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2.
9. That the aforesaid Title Suit No. 16 of 1974 was decreed on contest against Defendant no.1 on 31.05.1975 against which, Title Appeal No. 22 of 1975 was filed, which was dismissed on 18.09.1976. After that, no Second Appeal was filed, therefore, the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974 declaring 2/3rd share of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 over Schedule-A property and for recovery of possession after redemption of mortgage bond attained finality.
10. The present Title Suit No. 29 of 1977 has been filed for redemption of mortgage bond dated 13.09.1969 and for delivery of possession of 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs.
11. That the written statement was filed by defendant no. 1 contending therein that Abdul Rahim had only one daughter and have denied that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 are legal heirs of Abdul Rahim.
12. It is the case of Defendant no. 1 that he had purchased the property by registered sale deed of the year 1970 from the rightful owner defendant no. 2 namely, Jubeda Khatoon, who never disclosed that plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 were also legal heirs of Abdul Rahim. It is further contended tha
