Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2052
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Amrat Singh Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Dass Ram - Respondent
RSA No.4614 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2019
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.; Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in determining the rights, title, or interest of the parties involved.
Headnote:
res judicata - Civil Procedure - [Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 15(a)] - [Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1956, Section 11] - The court discussed the application of the principle of res judicata in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell. It also considered the rights claimed under the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in determining the rights, title, or interest of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff appealed against the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of res judicata, based on a previous litigation involving the same parties and property. The previous suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell involved disputes between the intended purchaser, intended seller, and predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suit was hit by the principle of res judicata, as the issues raised in the present suit had already been adjudicated upon in the previous litigation. The Court also analyzed various contentions raised by the appellant and concluded that there was no error in the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
Issues: The issues involved the application of res judicata, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in determining rights, title, or interest of the parties, and the rights claimed under the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the findings arrived at in the previous suit were binding and could not be ignored in the subsequent suit, as the issue was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit between the same parties. The Court also discussed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in determining the rights, title, or interest of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Plaintiff-appellant is in the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff on a preliminary issue i.e. the issues raised in the present suit are hit by principle of res judicata.
2. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below and the record.
3. It is undisputed that there was a previous litigation between the parties with regard to the suit land in which predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff were also parties. In the aforesaid suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff namely Naresh Kumar, Jai Ram, Sanjay Singhal and Shiv Kumar were parties. Sanjay Singhal and Shiv Kumar had sold the property in favour of Salesh Yadav who in turn had sold the property to the plaintiff in the present suit vide sale deed dated 16.10.1996.
4. While deciding the previous suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, no doubt ordinarily the Court only determines inter se dispute between the intended seller and intended purchaser and opines about the enforceability of the agreement to sell, however, in the present case, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was contested not only between the intended purchaser and intended seller but also by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. The issues which were framed in the suit for specific performance are extracted as under:-
"1. Whether the defendant No.l entered into an agreement dated 23.8.1986 to sell the suit land to the plaintiff? OPP.
2. Whether the exparte judgment and decree dated 23.1.1991 is illegal, null and void? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is still willing to perform his part of contract? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation of time? OPP.
5. Whether the defendant No.2 is not lessee in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
7. Whether an agreement to sell had been entered into between defendant No.l & Gian Chand on one hand and Baljeet Singh Dagar on the other hand in respect of suit land? OPD.
8. Whether defendants are the bonafide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration? OPD.
9. Relief"
5. There was issue with regard to validity of ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.01.1991. In fact, the aforesaid judgment and decree is not by the Civil Court but it is passed by a Revenue Court which as per the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Charan Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 543 does not have jurisdiction to grant declaration that someone has acquired ownership being occupancy tenant. It may be noted that Naresh Kumar was minor son of Dalpat who was tenant under the owners. It has come in evidence that Dalpat was having five sons namely Bijender Singh, Rajinder Singh, Padam Singh, Munshi Singh and Naresh. On death of Dalpat, the tenancy was inherited by his sons as joint tenants. As noticed above, Naresh at that time was minor. Remaining four sons of Dalpat surrendered tenancy rights by a registered deed dated 27.05.1987 on receipt of Rs.8,750/-. Now, Naresh who was minor at that time claims that he has continued as occupancy tenant on the property and thus become owner by operation of law. Naresh had in fact filed two proceedings, one before the Revenue Authorities as noticed above which resulted into order in his favour on 23.01.1991 and second another suit filed by Naresh on 05.07.2001 which resulted into a decree for l/5 th share of the total land measuring 22 kanals and 6 marlas. In the Civil Suit also, Naresh had claimed that he had become owner by virtue of the conferment of ownership to the occupancy tenants under Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Ves
