Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 350
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Nandita Dubey, J.
Ramsatav And Another - Appellants
Versus
Sahodra Bai - Respondent
Second Appeal No.1569 of 2005
Decided On : 13-05-2020
Ms. C.V. Rao, Learned Counsel, for the Appellants
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of resjudicata under Section 11 of CPC in property disputes.
Headnote:
Resjudicata - Property Dispute - Section 11 of CPC - [Section 11 of CPC] - The court discussed the principles of resjudicata and its applicability in the case. It found that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit had been heard and finally decided in a former suit between the same parties, and the decision had attained finality. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was directly and substantially the issue in the former suit, and there was no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the appellate Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that Sahodra Bai is not the daughter of Pathe @ Bhujwal and had no right to bring the suit for partition. They also sought permanent injunction to restrain Sahodra Bai from interfering in the possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not the owner or in possession of the suit property and that the judgment and decree in a previous suit is binding on them. The appellate Court dismissed the first appeal, holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by the principle of resjudicata.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by the principle of resjudicata, as the matter had been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was directly and substantially the issue in the former suit, and the decision in the previous suit had attained finality. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by the principle of resjudicata.
Final Decision: The second appeal stands dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal by plaintiffs/appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.24- A/2005 by District Judge, Balaghat District Balaghat arising out of judgment and decree dated 04.09.2003 passed in Civil Suit No.2-A/2002 by Civil Judge, Class-2, Baihar, District Balaghat.
2. By the instant suit, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that Sahodra Bai is not the daughter of Pathe @ Bhujwal and had no right to bring the suit for partition and the judgment and decree passed in favour of defendant Sahodra Bai in Civil Suit No.10 A/1991 is not binding on them and further for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 Sahodra Bai from interfering in the possession. It was pleaded that the defendant No.2 and 3 and late Pathe @ Bhujwal had earlier sold 12.6 acres of the land from the suit property to plaintiff and others. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 and 3 sold 8.06 acres of land to the plaintiffs whereas late Pathe who died issueless had sold his entire share in the suit property to the plaintiffs and since then plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit property.
3. It is undisputed that the suit property belonged to one 'Jhadu' who died on 25.08.1956. Jhadu had three sons Ramswaroop/defendant No.2, Pathe @ Bhujwal (since deceased) and Umesh Singh/defendant No.3 who had no issue. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.2 Ramswaroop. Earlier on 08.02.1991, the defendant No.1 Sahodra Bai filed a Civil Suit No. 10 A/1991 against the defendant No.2 and 3 seeking partition and possession of the suit land. The said suit was resisted on the ground that Sahodra Bai is not the daughter of Pathe @ Bhujwal. The said suit was however decreed in the favour of defendant No.1 Sohadra Bai holding that she is a daughter of Pathe @ Bhujwal. The aforestated judgment and decree in favour of Sahodra Bai was challenged by Ramswaroop and Ummed by way of First Appeal No.58 A/1998 and the same was dismissed on 08.01.1999.
4. The further case of the plaintiffs was that in the said Civil Suit No.2A/2002, the written statement filed by defendant No.2 and 3 (herein) on 24.04.1991 was signed by only defendant No.2 and not by defendant No.3. It was further stated that defendant No.2 was illiterate and of feeble mind, hence could not prosecute the case properly, hence the decree was passed against them. Defendant No.1 Sahodra Bai despite having knowledge that the land has been purchased by the plaintiff had not made them a party to the said civil suit, hence the judgment and decree passed (herein) is not binding on them.
5. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 Sahodra Bai, it was contended that earlier suit was regarding partition and possession of the ancestral land. As defendant No.2 father of the plaintiff was already a party to the said suit, it was not necessary to array the present plaintiffs as parties. It was further contended that the sale deed was bogus and fradulantly executed without consideration during the pendency of the earlier civil suit. The information in this regard was given to the Assistant Registrar Baihar, despite that the said deed was registered. It was contended that as the same was done during the pendency of the Civil Suit No.10 A/1991, it was not binding on the defendants.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as six issues. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff are not the owner and/or in possession of the suit property nor entitled to the decree of permanent injunction. It was further held that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No.10 A/1991 is binding on the plaintiffs. However, the trial Court found that the suit is not barred by principle of resjudicata as plaintiff was not a party to the previous suit.
7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2003 the plaintiffs preferred the first appeal. The appellan
