Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20262
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
MALLIKA DASAN – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNANKUTTY – Respondent
RSA 649/2023
Res judicata bars relitigation of claims previously adjudicated, necessitating clear evidence for property title claims.
Headnote:
Property - Suit for Declaration - Res Judicata, Limitation - Sections of Evidence Act - The court upheld the lower court's dismissal of the suit citing res judicata due to prior determinations and lack of sufficient evidence to establish title over the property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought declaration and possession concerning property claimed through earlier executed deeds, but faced objections on grounds of res judicata and adverse possession by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata due to a previous suit and that she failed to prove ownership or adequately identify the property in question.
Issues: Whether the prior dismissal of a similar suit barred the current claim and whether the plaintiff established her title over the purported property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that previous judicial determinations on the same issue prevent relitigation and highlighted the necessity of proving property claims through adequate evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
1. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent prohibitory injunction is the appellant in this appeal.
2. The reliefs were sought with respect to the plaint D schedule property having an extent of 1 cent from the defendants.
According to the plaintiff, she obtained A schedule property of 33 cents on the basis of Ext.A3 and B13 Assignment Deeds executed by her parents in favour of her and her husband.
Plaint B Schedule property of 11¼ cents is part of A Schedule property. The defendants have property on the eastern side, which is described in the C schedule. When she attempted to construct barbed wire to enclose plaint B schedule property, the same was objected to by the defendants and they encroached into Plaint D Schedule property. There is a pathway having a length of 45 feet and width of 5 feet in an east-west direction on the southern side of plaint B schedule property, which is a part of A schedule property.
3. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff had filed an earlier suit as O.S.No.372/1998 before the Munsiff's Court, Chittur, claiming right over the southern pathway and seeking injunction with respect to the same. The said suit was dismissed and the same was confirmed by the appellate court in A.S.No.254/2000 and hence the claim of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata. The defendants also claimed that the right of the plaintiff over the plaint B schedule property is lost by adverse possession and limitation. They also raised an objection with respect to non-joinder of necessary parties, as brothers and sisters of the plaintiff are co owners of the plaint A schedule property.
4. The Trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the suit is barred by res judicata on account of the judgment in O.S.No.372/1998 instituted by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff did not prove her title over plaint A and B schedule properties and that the suit is barred by limitation.
5. Though the plaintiff filed an Appeal, the same was also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
6. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
7. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. P.R.Venkatesh.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the earlier suit was only for an injunction simplicitor. Though the Court considered the issue with respect to the title, the same could not be relied on since the property therein was found to be not identified. He contended that it is clear from Ext.C2 and C2(a),the Commission Report and plan available in this case that the property involved in the said suit is the southern pathway whereas, the first prayer in the present suit relates to the eastern portion of plaint B schedule property. There is no bar in considering the first prayer in the suit. He also argued with reference to the commission report that the advocate commissioner was in fact confused with respect to the location of the plaint schedule properties and hence the ambiguity with respect to the identity of the properties happened in Exts.C2 and C2(a) plan. According to him, the First Appellate Court ought to have considered I.A.No.1/2023 filed to remit Exts.C2 and C2(a) while considering the appeal filed by the plaintiff.
9. I have gone through Ext.C2(a) Plan. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the first prayer relates to a portion of property that is not involved in the earlier suit.
But in the earlier suit the title over the plaint B schedule property was also considered and a definite finding was entered into with respect to the title of the plaintiff, though it is stated that the property is not identified. Even ignoring the judgment in the earlier suit, in the present case, the plaintiff has not made any serious attempt to identify the plaint schedule properties. The Trial court as well as the Appellate Court rightly found that Ext.C2(a)
