IMPORTANT POINT
In the previous litigation between same parties, the plaintiff had established his co-ownership to suit properties and thus two Courts below rightly decreed his suit for partition. High Court committed an error of law and jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below.

Headnote:Suit for Partition-Decreed by Trial Court on the basis of previous litigation between the parties (Ex. A-22 and A-23) coupled with joint patta (Ex. A7) granted under the (Tamil Nadu) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948-Affirmed by first appellate Court-In Second Appeal, High Court dismissed the suit on ground that Joint Patta (Ex. A7) cannot be treated to claim joint ownership to the suit properties and plaintiff was required to prove that he was co-owner of suit property by other evidence-Appeal to Supreme Court-It was found that ownership was established in previous litigation-Principles of res judicata and estoppel would apply-Subordinate Courts rightly granted decree-High Court was wrong in reversing them-Appeal allowed-Case law referred-(C.P.C. 1908-Sections 11 and 100).
       Held : After considering the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of this case, we find that there was no justification for the High Court in second appeal to reverse the concurrent findings and judgments of the two courts below. (Para 13)
       We have perused the contents of the two judgments in Civil Suit No.9003 of 1973 (Ex.A-22) and appellate judgment dated 24.4.1979 (Ex-A-23). We find that the High Court has clearly erred in observing in the impugned judgment that in the earlier suit, co-ownership to the suit property was not claimed by deceased - plaintiff (K. Ethirajan). (Para 16)
       It is true that joint patta (Ex.A-7) granted by Settlement Authorities in proceedings under the Act of 1948 cannot itself be a source of title to claim ownership and right of partition but as has been found by the trial court and the first appellate court, the plaintiff s claim for partition is not based on joint patta (Ex. A-7) alone but judgments rendered between same parties [Exs. A-22 and A-23] in the previous suit and appeal, have also been relied wherein the claim of the present plaintiff to remain in possession of the suit property without any interference by deceased M. Gurunathan and now his LRs had been crystalised by decree of dismissal of suit for eviction against him. Based on the judgment in the previous litigation an indefeasible right to continue to occupy the suit property as owner had been created in favour of the present plaintiff and the said judgment has attained finality between the same parties and their LRs. The argument that principle of res judicata cannot apply because in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit the whole property is the subject matter cannot be accepted. The principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted where issues directly and substantially involved between the same parties in the previous and subsequent suit are the same - maybe - in the previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the subsequent suit, the whole property is the subject matter. In our considered opinion, therefore, the two sub-ordinate courts were right in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff by relying on the judgments in the previous suit between the same parties and the joint patta [Ex.A-7]. The High Court in second appeal was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the two courts below. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
       Held finally : In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 11.7.1996 of the High Court passed in second appeal is set aside and the judgments of the courts below are restored. In the circumstances, we, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. (Para 22)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The primary issue involved a dispute over the ownership and partition of certain property, with the courts below having initially recognized the plaintiff's claim based on previous litigation and a joint patta (!) (!) .
The courts below had correctly decreed the plaintiff's entitlement to partition, relying on judgments from earlier suits and the joint patta, which established co-ownership and possession rights (!) (!) .
The High Court erred in interfering with these concurrent findings, especially by reversing the judgments of the lower courts, without sufficient legal justification (!) (!) .
The earlier litigation between the same parties, which included judgments recognizing the plaintiff’s possession and co-ownership, is relevant and binding, and the principles of res judicata and estoppel apply, preventing the defendant from contesting the ownership now (!) (!) .
The grant of a joint patta under the relevant land laws, while not conclusive of ownership, supports the conclusion of co-ownership when considered alongside the judgments from previous litigation (!) (!) .
The dispute regarding the extent of the property involved in the earlier suit versus the current suit does not negate the applicability of res judicata, as the issues of ownership and possession were directly and substantially involved in the previous proceedings (!) (!) .
The courts below correctly relied on the judgments from previous suits, which had established the plaintiff’s right to occupy and possess the property as a co-owner, and these judgments have attained finality (!) (!) .
The High Court's reversal of the lower courts’ decisions was unwarranted, and the appeal should be allowed, restoring the decrees of the courts below and dismissing the High Court’s judgment (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari J.-By judgment dated 11.7.1996 passed in Second Appeal No. 649 of 1987, the High Court of Madras has reversed the concurrent findings recorded in the judgments of the courts below and dismissed the suit preferred by deceased - plaintiff, K. Ethirajan [now represented in this appeal by the appellants as his legal representatives] for partition of the suit property consisting of a house and land appurtenant to it described as T.S.No.71/2 area 3.0536 grounds in village - Ayanavaram, Taluk - Madras extended area, District - Madras [Tamil Nadu].

2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the suit properties were owned by widow - Gangammal. Deceased K. Ethirajan (the original plaintiff) was Gangammal s sister s son and was allowed to occupy a portion of the suit properties since before coming into force of The (Tamil Nadu) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as an Act of 1948].

3. The widow - Gangammal died in the year 1939. The deceased - M. Gurunathan, the original defendant (represented in this appeal by his legal representatives as respondents) claimed right to the suit properties by inheritance claiming relationship with Gangammal as son of her husband s brother. Claiming title to the suit properties by inheritance, he had filed a suit O.S. No. 530 of 1948 (decided on 27.6.1949) against the step-brothers of Gangammal describing the latter as in unlawful possession of the suit property. He obtained a decree of possession against the step-brothers of Gangammal in the said suit. The deceased - original plaintiff K. Ethirajan, who was sister s son of Gangammal and in occupation of the portion of the suit property was not a party to the said suit O.S. No. 530 of 1948 which was decreed on 27.6.1949.

4. It is also not in dispute that in proceedings taken in accordance with Section 18(4) of the Act of 1948, the Director of Settlement recognised the joint ownership and possession of deceased - plaintiff K. Ethirajan and deceased - defendant M. Gurunathan on the suit property and granted a joint patta (marked as Ex.A-7 in this suit} in their favour. This order of Director, Settlement under the provisions of Section 18(4) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1948 granting joint patta to the parties was passed on 28.8.1970. The grant of the said joint patta to the contesting parties was upheld by all the higher authorities under the Act of 1948. The claim of deceased- defendant for recognition of his exclusive right to the suit properties, being nearest heir of Gangammal was rejected toy all the authorities concerned under the Act of 1948. It is on the basis of this joint patta (marked in the suit as Ex. A7) that the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court as well as by the First Appellate Court.

5. The trial court and the first appellate court in granting decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff, apart front relying on the joint patta (Ex.A-7), relied on the judgments passed in the previous litigation with regard to the suit properties between deceased - plaintiff (K. Ethirajan) and the deceased - defendant (M. Gurunathan). The deceased - defendant (M. Gurunathan) had filed Original Suit No. 9003 of 1973 against deceased - K. Ethirajan, seeking his eviction and delivery of possession of a portion of suit land of the dimension 37 x 20 with a super-structure thereon used for residence Deceased - K. Eithirajan as defendant in the said earlier suit resisted his eviction on grounds inter alia that he is in possession of the disputed land and the super-structure, being the adopted son of Gangammal and had been granted a joint patta in the proceedings which concluded in his favour under the Act of 1948.

6. The earlier Original Suit No. 9003 of 1973 seeking eviction of deceased - plaintiff (K. Ethirajan) from suit property was dismissed by the court of 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras by judgment dated 06.10.1976, a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 981

Cases Referred (3)