SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Sikk) 6

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Kipusudan Dayal, Anup Deb
BABA RAISAILY - Appellant
Versus
KAUSHALAYA DEVI - Respondents
RFA 19 Of 99
Decided On : May 15, 2000

Advocates Appeared:
N.K.P.Sarraf, N.RAI JYOTI KHARGA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit is not barred by res-judicata if the issue in question has not been decided by the relevant authorities.

Headnote:

res-judicata - Civil Suit - The court held that the suit was not barred by res-judicata as the issue of the validity of the sale deed had not been decided by the revenue authorities, and therefore, the suit was allowed.

Fact of the Case:

Baba Rasaily filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, which was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of res-judicata.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the issue of the validity of the sale deed had not been decided by the revenue authorities, and therefore, the suit was not barred by res-judicata. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for disposal according to law.

Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was barred by res-judicata due to the decision of the revenue authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by res-judicata as the issue of the validity of the sale deed had not been decided by the revenue authorities.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for disposal according to law.

DAYAL,C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, initially registered as revision petition, was filed by Baba rasaily against the decision of the learned Civil judge, East dated 4. 9. 1999 in Civil Suit No. 112 of 1996 whereby the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed on the ground that the suit is barred by res-judicata.

( 2 ) BABA Rasaily had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, Kaushalya Devi. After the sale deed was registered, an objection was filed by baba Rasaily praying for cancellation of the sale deed. The Sub-Registrar, gangtok, dismissed the objections. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, suit was brought by the appellant for cancellation of the sale deed and on one of the pleas taken by the respondents, an issue was framed to the effect whether the suit is barred by res-judicata. The learned trial Court held that the revenue authorities are also competent Court in view of Explanation viii of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the suit is barred by res-judicata. However, the learned Civil Judge missed the relevant point whether the issue that the sale deed is liable to be cancelled had, in fact, been decided by the revenue authorities. The Sub-Registrar had merely dismissed the petitioner and advised the parties to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. This decision was not interfered with by the appellate authority. It is clear that issue as to the validity pf the sale deed was not decided by the revenue authorities. As such, there is no question of the suit being barred by res-judicata. The learned counsel for the appellant concedes to this position

( 3 ) IN view of our aforesaid finding and with the consent of the learned counself for the respondents, the appeal is allowed, the impugned decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Civil Judge, East for disposal according to law petition allowed.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top