Back
2008 Supreme(UK) 214
2008 UAD 709
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar
Civil appeal No. 3495 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10317 of 2007)
DADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST) – Appellant
Versus
MAHANT RAM NIWAS & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 12.05.2008
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajiv Datta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Mr. Shree Pal Singh and Mr. B.K. Satija, Advocates
Headnote:(A) Cause of Action — What would constitute a cause of action — It would mean a bundle of facts which would be necessary to be proved by the plaintiff so as to enable him to obtain a decree. (Para 16)
(B) The Judgment of a Court — It should not be interpreted as a statute — The meaning of the words used in a judgment must be found out on the backdrop of the fact of each case — The Court while passing a judgment cannot take away the right of the successful party indirectly which it cannot do directly — An observation made by a Superior court is not binding — What would be binding is the ratio of the decision — Such a decision must be arrived at upon entering into the merit of the issues involved in the case. (Para 19)
(C) C.P.C., 1908, Or. II Rule 2 & Explanation V of Sec. 11 & 12 — Sec. 11 of the Code not only recognises the general principle of res judicata, it bars the jurisdiction of the court in terms of Sec. 12 thereof — Explanation V of Sec. 11 of the Code extends the principle of res judicata stating that the reliefs which could have been or — Ought to have prayed for even if it was not prayed for would operate as res judicata — Sec. 12 thereof bars filing of such suit at the instance of a person who is found to be otherwisebound by the decision in the earlier round of litigation and in a case where the principle of res judicata shall apply. (Para 21)
(D) Estoppel, Waiver and res judicata — The principles are procedural in nature — Thus, will have no application in a case where judgment has been rendered wholly without jurisdiction or — Issues involve only pure questions of law — The principle of issue will have no role to play, even in such cases. (Para 22)
¼v½ okn dk dkj.k & okn ds dkj.k esa D;k lfEefyr gS & bldk rkRi;Z mu rF;ksa ds caMy ls gS ftUgsa oknh }kjk fMdh izkIr djus gsrq lkfcr djuk visf{kr gSA
¼izLrj 16½
¼c½ U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; & bldh fdlh vf/kfu;e dh rjg ls O;k[;k ugha djuh pkfg, & fdlh Hkh fu.kZ; esa iz;qDr fd;s x;s 'kCn ml dsl ds rF;ksa ds lefFkZr gksrs gSa & U;k;ky; tc dksbZ fu.kZ; nsrk gS rks og lQy gksus okys i{k ds vf/kdkj dks ftls og Li"V :i ls Nhu ugha ldrk mls vLi"V :i ls Hkh ugha ys ldrk & fdlh ofj"B U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ f7.kh ck/;dkjh ugha gS & ck/;dkjh D;k gS og fu.kZ; dk vuqikr gS tks fd okn ds okn&fcUnqvksa ds xq.k nks"k esa ?kqlus ds mijkUr fudkyk tkrk gSA ¼izLrj 19½
¼l½ nhokuh izfd;k lafgrk] 1908 vkns'k II fu;e 2 vkSj Li"Vhdj.k V /kkjk 11 vkSj 12 & izfd;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 11 iwoZ fuf.kZr ds lkekU; fl)kUr dks gh ekU;rk iznku ugha djrh cfYd /kkjk 12 ds varxZr ;g U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dks Hkh ckf/kr djrh gS & /kkjk 11 dk Li"Vhdj.k la[;k V iwoZfuf.kZr fu.kZ; ds fl)kUr dks Hkh izHkkfor djrk gS & ftlds vuqlkj tks vuqrks"k ek¡xk tk ldk vFkok ek¡xk tkuk pkfg, Fkk ;gk¡ rd fd tks ek¡xk gh uk x;k gks] ds lEcU/k esa iwoZ fuf.kZr dk fl)kUr ykxw gks tk,xk & /kkjk 12 CPC esa ml O;fDr ds }kjk tks vU; izdkj ls fu.kZ; esa ck/; le>k x;k gks ,slk okn nk;j ugha dj ldrk vkSj ml fLFkfr esa Hkh tc iwoZ fuf.kZr dk fl)kUr ykxw gksrk gksA ¼izLrj 21½
¼n½ izfrjks/k] R;kx] vkSj iwoZ fuf.kZr dk fl)kUr & ;s fl)kUr LoHkko ls izfd;kRed gS & bl izdkj ml dsl esa tgk¡ fu.kZ; iw.kZr;k fcuk dk;Z{ks= ds fn;k x;k gS] vFkok tgk¡ ij okn fcUnq dsoy fof/k ij vk/kkfjr gksa ij ykxw ugha gksxk & okn fcUnq dk fl)kUr ,sls dslst esa dksbZ izHkko ugha MkysxkA ¼izLrj 22½
S.B. Sinha, J.— Leave granted.
2. Applicability of the principles of Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure having regard to an observation made by this Court, is involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th May, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 4070 of 2005.
3. Appellant herein is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1959 and governed by the provisions thereof. Acquisition of a Gaddi and the management thereof was the subject matter of a suit.
Mahant Mani Ram Swami, admittedly was the holder of the said Gaddi.
First respondent claimed himself to be the ‘Pota Chela’ of the said Mahant Mani Ram Swami.
4. Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen as regard succession and management of the Gaddi, first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak. It was registered as Suit No. 295/2 of 1964. Another suit was filed by Mahant Mani Ram Sadhu Dadu Panthi which was marked as Suit No. 46 of 1967. The said suits were filed for grant of permanent injunction.
5. Appellant has claimed its entitlement to the management of the said Gaddi under a Will purported to have been executed by Mahant Mani Ram Swami. The main controversy between the parties, therefore, was which party was entitled to manage the Gaddi at Kalanaur of the said Trust. The matters relating to management of another Gaddi situated at another place, i.e., Makhora, however, is not in dispute.
6. The learned trial judge, having regard to the pleadings of the parties inter alia, framed the following issues :-
“1. Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lahar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to Mahant Nitya Nand according to the custom and law as application to the succession of Nitya Nand as Mahant and owner of property?
3. Whether Nitya Nand made a valid will in favour of defendant No. 1? If so, to what effect?
4. Whether the suit lies in the present form?”
An additional issue was framed, after the defendant Nos. 3 & 4 were impleaded as parties in the suit, which reads :-
“5-A. Whether defendant No. 3 or defendant No. 4 was the Chela of the late Mahant Mani Ram and is now the present Mahant of the institution?
7. The principal issues were decided against the first respondent. The suit was dismissed holdings that he was not entitled to hold or manage the Gaddi in question.
An appeal preferred thereagainst, being Civil Appeal No. 89/13 of 1973, was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak by his orders dated 2nd January, 1973, holding :-
“Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence to show that Nitya Nand and Mahant Lahar Dass were the Chelas of Mahant Mani Ram and this appellant is the Chela of Lahar Dass. Mahant Mani Ram used to be the Dohli Dar of certain agricultural lands and after his death the mutation entry Ex.P. 13/6 was sanctioned by the revenue authorities on 16.7.1958. Lahar Dass had a predeceased Mahant Mani Ram.
It was furthermore held :-
“Therefore, my finding also is that the appellant has failed in improving that he was appointed as the Mahant of Gaddi by the Bhaik in accordance with the prevailing custom and practice. Even the writing in the Bahi showing payments of certain moneys to the members of the at by the Bhaik by the appellant has been withheld.”
It was furthermore held :-
“In that connection it is found that the appellant is the Chela of Lahar Dass and that Lahar Dass and Mahant Nitya Nand were Gurbhai (Chelas of the said Mani Ram). But, that does not come to the aid of the appellant for the reason that he has failed to prove that he was appointed as the mahant by the Bhaik in accordance with the prevailing custom.
In the connection of issue No. 3 it is found that although Mahant Nitya Nand did execute this will, which has been attested by two witnesses in a sound disposing mind
