Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg, J.
Gurdip Singh
Versus
Arjan Singh And Ors.
Regular Second Appeal No. 453 of 1987,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
RES JUDICATA - WILL - SECTION 11, 13, 14 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - A finding recorded in a previous suit between the same parties on the validity of a Will operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit, even if the ultimate decree was in favor of the party against whom the finding was recorded. The aggrieved party has a right of appeal against such a finding, and the mere fact that an appeal was filed and dismissed as not maintainable does not negate the finding's finality.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of ownership of land based on a registered Will executed in their favor by Sunder Singh. The defendants contested the suit, claiming half share in the land based on a different Will executed by Sunder Singh in their favor. The Trial Court found the plaintiffs' Will to be genuine and dismissed the defendants' suit. The defendants appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's finding, holding that the plaintiffs were debarred from taking a plea of the Will's validity due to res judicata. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the finding recorded in the previous suit on the validity of the plaintiffs' Will operated as res judicata in the present suit. The plaintiffs had a right of appeal against the finding, and the mere fact that their appeal was dismissed as not maintainable did not negate the finding's finality. The High Court also upheld the Appellate Court's finding that the plaintiffs' Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and could not be considered genuine.
Issues: 1. Whether the finding recorded in a previous suit on the validity of a Will operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit, even if the ultimate decree was in favor of the party against whom the finding was recorded? 2. Whether the aggrieved party has a right of appeal against such a finding? 3. Whether the mere fact that an appeal was filed and dismissed as not maintainable negates the finding's finality?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata aims to prevent contradictory verdicts by different Courts on the same facts. A finding recorded in a previous suit between the same parties operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit, even if the ultimate decree was in favor of the party against whom the finding was recorded. 2. The aggrieved party has a right of appeal against such a finding. The right of appeal is not dependent on the maintainability of the appeal. The mere fact that an appeal was filed and dismissed as not maintainable does not negate the finding's finality. 3. The object of the law is to give finality to a lis and not to bring into existence two contrary findings on the same fact by competent Courts. Therefore, the judgment given earlier on the issue operates as res judicata.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the finding recorded in the previous suit on the validity of the plaintiffs' Will operated as res judicata in the present suit. The High Court also upheld the Appellate Court's finding that the plaintiffs' Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and could not be considered genuine.
G.C.Garg, J.
1. This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs.
2. Gurdip Singh and Sukhchain Singh filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of the land measuring 79 Kanals 11 Marias situated in village Agwar Ralhan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 on the basis of a registered Will dated 17.8.1972 executed by Sunder Singh in their favour. In the alternative it was prayed that a decree in their favour be passed restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land except in due course of law. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 had earlier filed a suit against the plaintiffs on 18.10.1979 claiming half share in the land in dispute on the basis of a registered Will dated 9.1.1959 allegedly executed by Sunder Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, his sons. The plaintiffs had contested that suit by pleading the Will of Sunder Singh dated 17.8.1972 in their favour. That suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge, Jagraon and the two Wills alleged to have been executed py Sunder Singh dated 9.1.1959 and 17.8.1972 were disbelieved. The suit was dismissed with the observation that the estate of Sunder Singh will devolve, upon his natural heirs in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs who were defendants in the earlier suit against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge was dismissed being not maintainable. It was further pleaded that after the decision of the appeal in the previous suit a mutation was sanctioned in favour of the natural heirs on 22.6.1982, and thus Arjun Singh was trying to take forcible possession of 1/4th share in view of the mutation. Hence a suit for declaration as the mutation had cast a cloud on their rights.
3. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 4 to 7 by filing a joint written statement. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by principle of res judicata and that the plaintiffs were estopped by their act and conduct in filing the present suit. The execution of the Will by Sunder Singh in favour of the plaintiffs was denied.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether Sunder Singh deceased had executed a registered Will dated 17.8.1972 in favour of the plaintiff ? OPP.
(2) Whether plaintiff No. 2 is not a minor. If so its effect ? OPP.
(3) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee ?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing of the suit ? OPD.
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction prayed for?
(6) Relief.
(2-A) Whether the plaintiffs are debarred from taking the pleas of Will dated 17.8.72 alleged to be executed by Sunder Singh deceased, by the principle of res judicata ? OPD.
(5-A) Whether deceased Sunder Singh executed a Will dated 9.1.59 registered on 24.1.59 in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2?OPD.
5. The Trial Court found issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the Will Exhibit P-l had been duly proved to be a genuine document. Issue No. 2-A was found against the defendants by holding that the findings regarding the Will dated 17.8.1972 in the previous suit did hot operate as res-judicata in the present suit and that the genuineness and Validity of the Will was required to be determined afresh independently. Under Issue No. 5 it was found that the plaintiffs were not estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit. Under Issue No. 5-A it was found that the findings recorded in the previous suit regarding validity of the Will dated 9.1.1959 had become final and could not be reagitated in the present suit. As a result of the above findings, the suit was decreed.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, Arjun Singh, defendant No. 1 filed an appeal which was ultimately decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. In appeal the finding as
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
