LexDADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST) versus MAHANT RAM NIWAS AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 237 -..-Ir DADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST) A v. MAHANT RAM NIWAS AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.3495 Of 2008) MAY 12, 2008 B .. ..,.- [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order 2 Rule 2 and S. 11 " Principles of res judicata - Applicability of - Issues in a suit for entitlement of Gaddi of a religious trust dete_rmined c finally by Supreme court in first round of litigation - Respon- dent No.1 filed suit claiming possession of certain property in terms of directions of Supreme Court - Cause of action in subsequent suit whether same as in the earlier suit - Prin- 4. ciples of res judicata - Applicability of - Held: Respondent's D suit for possession was premised on legal entitlemenf - Ap- pellants and respondents both claimed their right over the Gaddi of the trust in question in first round of litigation - Su- preme Court finally decided the case holding that respondent No. 1 was not in possession of the suit property and he was E given liberty to file suit for possession - Observation made by Supreme Court is not binding, what would be binding is the ratio of the decision - Thus, finding arrived at by Supreme /' Court, attained finality - Hence, issues so determined in the + first suit become binding on the parties - Once the issue of F entitlement to Gaddi as raised by respondent No. 1 and a plea contra thereto as raised by appellants, determined, the same would operate as res judicata - Hence s. 11 of CPC attracted. Principles/Doctrines: Principles of estoppel, waiver & res judicata ~ Applica- G .... bility of. Words & Phrases: 237 H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. )..... . A !Cause of action' - Meaning of Appellant is a registered Public Trust. One 'S' was allegedly holding the Gaddi of the said trust. In the first round of litigation, first respondent filed a suit claiming himself to be the Pota Chela of the holder of the Gaddi. B Another person filed a suit for grant of permanent injunc- tion. Appellant-Trust claimed its entitlement to the man- 1'- < agement of the trust under the Will purported to have been executed by 'S'. Trial judge dismissed the suit. Appeal pre- ferred thereagainst by respondent No.1 was dismissed c by the first appellate court. A second appeal preferred thereagainst by respondent No.1 was allowed by the Di- vision Bench of the High Court. Appeal preferred thereaginst by the appellant was allowed by a Division Bench of this court restoring the judgment & decree of D the first appellate court giving liberty to respondent No.1 to file a suit for possession, if so advised. Respondent No.1 then filed a fresh suit claiming possession of certain properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial judge as barred by the principles of res judicata as cause of action E in the present suit and the earlier suit was same. Appeal preferred thereagainst by respondents was allowed by the first appellate court holding that neither the principles of res judicata nor Order II Rule 2 of CPC were applicable, in view of the judgment of this court in first round of litiga- tion. Appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was ..... F allowed by the High Court holding that once it is ordered by the Supreme Court that the judgment will not come in the way for suit for possession, the suit for possession could not be dismissed on the basis of previous judg- G ment in a suit for injunction. Hence, the present appeals and also the Contempt Petition. Appellant-Trust contended that where the suit is barred under the principles of res judicata or Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, effect thereof cannot be H taken away by a mere observation of this Court; that in DADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST) v. 239 MAHANT RAM NIWAS AND ANOTHER --+ any event the principle of issue estoppal shall apply; and A that in any event the suit should have been held to be barred by limitation. Respondents submitted that the scope of the earlier suits being confined to the question of possession as on B the date of institution thereof, the subsequent suit claim- • -1-- ing title over the Gaddi as also recovery of possession was not barred under the principles of res judicata or Or- der II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; that the entire issue between the parties as regards their legal rights hav- ing been left open, the principle of res judicata could not c have any applica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.