BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS versus RISAL SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 16-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
217, 
Appellate Court to commit is not ci.rcumscribed to 
oases oxclusively triable b5 a court of Session and 
the High Court was in error in taking a contrary 
view. 
We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the 
order of the High Court and restore that of the 
Sessions J utlge. 
Appwl allowed. 
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS 
v. 
RISAL SINGH & OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDR."-GADIUR 
RAGHUBAR DAY.AL, JJ.) 
and 
Civil Procedure-Res judicata-Twelve suits against four sets 
of defenda .. ts-Decreed by common judgment-Twelve app<als-
Appeals by one set of defendants dismissed for default-Whether 
other appeals barred-Appeals to Supreme Court-Consolidation 
Operations-If make appeals infructuous-U.P. Consolidation of 
Holdings Act, 1953, (U.P. V of 1954). 
K, H and M filed four suits each against four sets of 
defendants in respect of different sets of plots under s. 175 
U. P. 
~renancy. Act, 1939. Since similar points were involved 
the twelve suits were tried together and were disposed of by a 
common judgment decreeing them. Twelve decrees wCre 
prepared and the defendants preferred twelve appeals to the 
Additional Commissioner. Three appeals by one set of the 
defendants B were dismissed for default and the remaining 
nine were dismissed on merits. Against the dismissal of the 
nine appeals on merits the three sets of defendants preferred 
nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue but they were 
dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954. In 
November, 1954, the appellants filed petitions for special leave 
before the Supreme Court and on April 18, 
1~55, special 
leave was granted. In July 1954, the villages in which the 
lands in suit were situate came under consolidation operations 
onder the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the 
operations were completed by the publication of a notification 
19!2 
T/,, 81atnf 
Uttar Pradesh 
v. 
Shonk., 
K•ftur J. 
1963 
19C:! 
Baljttl ~ingh 
v. 
Uisal Singh 
. 218 St:l'R_g:\IE COCRT REPOltTS [1962) St:Pl'. 
under s. 52 of the Act on October 17, 195:). The appdlants 
did not file any objections before the consolidation authorities. 
The respondent contended that in vic\v of the consolidation 
operations the appeals before the Supreme Court had become 
infructuous. 
Held, that the appeals had not becon1c 
infructuous. 
There , .. •as nothing in the L'. P. Consolidation of Holdings 
Act, 
1953~ as it stou<l <luring the period the \·illage in su.it 
was under consolidation operations \\·bich could have in any 
'vay affected these appeals, during 
c :r after the consolidation 
operations. The subsequent 1\1ncnding 1\cts di<l not ;iffcct the 
appeals as they wr.re prospective in operation and applird 
only to cases 'vherc the consolidation operations \Vere started 
after the Amending Acts had come into force. 
Heid, further 
that the appeals before the Board of 
Revenue were not barred by resjudicrtfa. It was essential for 
the bar of res judicuta that the previous adjudication must 
have been bet\veen the same parties. The three suits in which 
judgments had becorne final \Vere against one B and not against 
auy of the appellants. The matter in issue in those three suits 
\\las different from that i11 the other nine suits as each of the 
suits related to different plots. The common judgment was 
really t\"Velve judgments in the t\velve suits. 
Hudri iYarayan Singh v. Kmnrleo Prasad Singh, ( 1962) 
3. S. C. R. 759 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLAn; JumsnrcTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. ()7 to 7 5 of 195!!. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated l\Iay 7, 1954 of the U.P. Board of 
Rcvenur, in Second Appeals Nos. 53 to 61 of 
1945·46. 
S. P. Sinha, J.P. Goyul and Sadhu Singh, for 
the appellants. 
Bislw.n Narain and K. L. Afelita, for the 
respondents. 
1962. 
February 15. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-Thcse nine appeals, 
by special leave, are against the orders of the 
Board of Revenue, Utta.r Pradesh, dismissing nine 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPR:tl]ME COURT'REPORTd 
219 
second appeals filed by the appellants in circum-
stances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that 
the orders of the First Appellate Court in three 
other connected first appeals had become final and 
operated as res judicata. 
Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh, 
Hoshiar Singh arid Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these 
brothers 
instituted four suits. 
Hoshiar Singh 
instituted 
suit No. 48 
of 1944 
under s. l 75 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.