LexBRIJ NARAIN SINGH versus ADYA PRASAD (DEAD) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.~~ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1114 A BRIJ NARAIN SINGH v. · ADYA PRASAD (DEAD) AND ORS. ~ (Civil Appeal No. 5689 of 2000) B FEBRUARY 18, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Y' c s. 11 and Or. 41, r. 33 - Principle of res judicata - Applicability of- Lands situated in four different villages - Four suits i.e. one suit relating to lands situated in each of the four villages filed under s. 49 of the Act - Said suits viz. suit nos. ,f- 97, 98, 99 and 100 decreed by a common judgment - Appeal " against judgment in suit no. 98 dismissed - That judgment D attained finality - Appeals against the common judgment in suit nos. 99 and 100 allowed - Consequently suit nos. 99 and 100 dismissed - That judgment also attained finality- Whether the judgment in appeals arising from suit nos. 99 and 100 would ~ I operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings relating E to the lands which were the subject matter of suit no. 98 - Held, ~ No - Plaintiffs in all the four suits were common but defendants were not common - Also, the lands were situated in different villages - Hence, decision in appeals relating to suit nos. 99 and 100 did not affect the decision in suit no. 98 which had. F attained finality- UP Tenancy Act, 1939 - s.49. The lands in question were situated in four different y villages. The owner of the said lands died. His widow executed a sale deed in respect of the said lands. Pursuant to her death, four suits i.e. one suit relating to lands G situated in each of the four villages, were filed under Section 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The said four suits viz. suit nos. 97, 98, 99 and 100 were decreed by the Trial Court by a common judgment wherein it was held ~ that the said sale deed had not been executed for legal • H 1114 BRIJ NARAIN SINGH v. ADYA PRASAD (DEAD) 1115 AND ORS. ~ ";: necessity. The predecessor-in-interest of Appellant A challenged the judgment in suit no.98 by filing appeal which was dismissed on ground of delay. No further appeal was filed and thus the judgment in suit no.98 attained finality. Two other appeals were filed against the common judgment in suit nos. 99 and 100 which the B Appellate Court allowed holding that the said sale deed '1' had been executed for legal necessity. Thus the two suits, viz. suit nos. 99 and 100 were dismissed. The judgment ending in dismissal of suit nos. 99 and 100 also attained finality. c Dispute arose as to whether the judgment in appeals arising from suit nos.99 and 100 would operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings relating to the lands which were the subject matter of suit no.98. High Court, by the impugned judgment, held that the D 'l' subsequent appellate judgment in the appeals arising from the suit nos. 99 and 100 will not operate as res judicata. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Res Judicata is a principle of judicial E administration and is based on the common law maxim of public policy aiming at finality of litigation and preventing a litigant from being tried twice over on the same issue. [Para 11] [1123-F] F 1.2. In the instant case there were four suits. The plaintiffs in all the four suits were common but the defendants in the suit were not common, and the properties were situated in different villages. The decision in the appeals relating to Suit Nos. 99 and 100 does not G affect the decision in Suit No.98 which had attained finality . • Though in terms of Order 41 Rule 33, CPC benefit is < available to a party not appealing but the emphasis is on the same suit. Therefore, the view of the High Court is irreversible. [Par~s 17,18] [1125-F, G; 1126-A] H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS i- [2008] 2 S.C.R. > .. A lftikhar Ahmed and Ors. v. Syed Meharban All and Ors. 4 - (197 4 (2) SCC 151; Lal Chand v. Radha Kishan (1977 (2) 'SCC 88; Mt. Munni Bibi and Anr. v. Tirloki Nath and Ors. AIR 1931 PC 114; Kalipada De v. Dwijapada Das, 57 IA 24 and ~ ' Sheoparsan Singh and Ors. v. Ramnandan Singh, 43 LA. 91- B referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDCTION: Civil Appeal No. 5689 1' of 2000. From the final Judgment and Order dated 241412000 of · c the :;igh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 2857/ 1978. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. Shashindra Tripathi, Chitranjan Mishra and Mridula Ray D Bharadwaj for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by r- -f" • D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.