Back
1952 Supreme(P&H) 111
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kapur and S.M.Soni JJ.
Dwarka Das
Versus
Union Of India
First Appeal No. 63 of 1951,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 30, 1952
The doctrine of res judicata applies to co-defendants where there is a conflict of interest between them, it is necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and the question between the defendants has been finally decided.
Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - CO-DEFENDANTS - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80, CIVIL P. C. - VALIDITY - RAILWAY RECEIPT - FICTITIOUS - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF GOODS OR PRICE - DISMISSAL - SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY CO-DEFENDANT AGAINST RAILWAY FOR SAME RELIEF - RES JUDICATA - APPLIES - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80, CIVIL P. C. - MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH - NOTICE ADDRESSED TO GOVERNOR-GENERAL THROUGH SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD - NOT A VALID NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Dwarka Das purchased 200 bags of wheat from Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan, who had obtained the goods from Dayal Das-Dharam Paul. The Railway Receipt for the goods was lost, and Dwarka Das obtained an indemnity bond from Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan. Meanwhile, another claimant, Pranjiwan Das-Jinha Bhai, claimed title to the goods based on an endorsement of the Railway Receipt. Dwarka Das filed a suit for a declaration of title in the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Kapurthala and obtained a decree. Pranjiwan Das-Jinha Bhai then filed a suit in the Surat Court against Dwarka Das, the Railway, and others, claiming recovery of the price of the goods or their value. Dwarka Das filed a written statement pleading that he was the owner of the goods and had a good title to them. The Surat Court found that the Railway Receipt was fictitious and that the goods were never actually booked. It also held that Dwarka Das was disputing the title of the plaintiff and was also making a claim against the Railway for which he had already filed a suit. The Court dismissed the suit against Dwarka Das. Dwarka Das then brought the present suit for recovery of the price of the wheat, interest, and expenses.
Finding of the Court:
1. The conditions for the application of the doctrine of res judicata to co-defendants are: (1) There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided. 2. In the present case, there was a conflict of interest between Dwarka Das and the Railway Administration, as the Railway was disputing Dwarka Das's claim to the goods. It was necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff in the Surat Court the relief he claimed. The question between Dwarka Das and the Railway was finally decided by the Surat Court, which found that the Railway Receipt was fictitious and that the goods were never actually booked. 3. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present suit, and the suit is barred. 4. The notice given by Dwarka Das under Section 80, Civil P. C. was not a proper notice, as it was not addressed to the General Manager of the Railway, as required by the section.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present suit. 2. Whether the notice given by Dwarka Das under Section 80, Civil P. C. was a proper notice.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of res judicata applies to co-defendants where there is a conflict of interest between them, it is necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims, and the question between the defendants has been finally decided. 2. In the present case, there was a conflict of interest between Dwarka Das and the Railway Administration, as the Railway was disputing Dwarka Das's claim to the goods. It was necessary to decide this conflict in order to give the plaintiff in the Surat Court the relief he claimed. The question between Dwarka Das and the Railway was finally decided by the Surat Court, which found that the Railway Receipt was fictitious and that the goods were never actually booked. 3. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present suit, and the suit is barred. 4. The notice given by Dwarka Das under Section 80, Civil P. C. was not a proper notice, as it was not addressed to the General Manager of the Railway, as required by the section.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.
Kapur, J.
1. In this plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of Mr. Prahlad Singh Bindra, Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, dated 30-12-1950 the points canvassed for our decision are one of res judicata and the other of the validity of notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., which are really the only two points decided by the trial Court.
2. In order to understand how the question of res judicata arises it may be necessary to give the facts of the case in some detail. On 20-4-1943 the firm Dayal Das-Dharam Paul of Dhilwan are alleged to have consigned 200 bags of wheat weighing 500 maiuids to Surat, the consignee being Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan of Philwan. This was by means of invoice No. 40 and Railway Receipt No. 498293, and the goods are alleged to have been sent by a wagon No, 27325. On 29-4-1943 the goods were sold by the consignee to Dwarka Das plaintiff in the following manner It was represented to him that the Railway Receipt was lost. An indemnity bond was then executed in favour of Dwarka Das by Besheshar Nath-Ram Kishan who were the consignees from Dayal Das-Dharam Paul, the sale price being Rs. 7, 500/-. This indemnity bond was attested by the Station Master of Dhilwan. Another indemnity bond was executed by Dwarka Das, Dayal Das-Dharam Paul and Bashesher Nath-Ram Kishan on the same day in favour of the Railway (N. W. Railway). Dwarka Das, the plaintiff, then went to Surat and produced the indemnity bond but was refused delivery, because in the meanwliile the goods were being claimed by the firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinha-bhai of Surat.
3. This new claimant claimed to have obtained title to these goods by means of the endorsement of the Railway Receipt, which the other claimant, the present plaintiff, was claiming to have lost, in tne following manner. Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan endorsed the Railway Receipt in favour of Behari Lal who in turn endorsed it in favour of Roshan Lal-Hans Raj who then sent it to the Imperial Bank of Surat for collection of money and from whom it was obtained by the firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinhabhai. Thus tne firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinhabhai was putting forward a claim against the Railway on the basis of the original receipt which they had in their possession endorsed to them from various persons, and Dwarka Das was claiming the same goods on the basis of an indemnity bond which was executed in his favour by the original consignees, that is, the firm Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan of Dhilwan.
4. On 21-4-1943 these very same goods were consigned by Om Farkash-Parshotam Das of Dhilwan to self at Kalyan. The wagon in which these goods were despatched was the same, that is No. 27325, although it is not clear whether the invoice number and the Railway Receipt were the same or not. It was claimed by the plaintiff before us that they were the same. Nath Ram-Dewan Chand took delivery of these goods at Kalyan on the G. I. P. Railway on 13-5-1943.
5. Dwarka Das sent a notice to the Railway claiming the goods or the price of the goods. This notice is not on the record. To this the Railway replied that the firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinhabhai were also laying claim to the same goods and had produced a Railway Receipt, and they asked Dwarka Das to get his title decided in a Court of proper Jurisdiction. Dwarka Das thereupon brought a suit for a declaration of title in the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Kapurthala on 10-6-1943 which was decreed on 14-7-1943. The parties to this suit were Dwarka Das plaintiff, Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan and Pranjiwan Das-Jinhabnai.
6. Firm Pranjiwan Das-Jinha Bhai brought a suit in the Surat Court on 30-7-1943. In this case the Governor-General and the two Railways were party defendants besides Dwarka Das (the present plaintiff), the original consignee Basheshar Nath-Ram Kishan, the persons who had endorsed the Railway Receipt in favour of the firm Prart-jiwan Das-Jinha Bhai and several others including the Imperial Bank of India, and it is not necessary to mention them. It is nec
