LexDEVA RAM AND ANR. versus ISHWAR CHAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DEVA RAM AND ANR. v. ISHWAR CHAND AND ANR. OCTOBER 16, 1995 [KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 2, Rule 2--Suit to include the whole claim--Unity of all claims based on same cause of action in one suiHf subsequent suit based on a different cause of action-Rule will not operate A B as a bar. C Explanation I to VIII, Section 11----Res judicata-Rule of-. Applicability-Basic requirement for. Sections 96 and JOO-Appeal-Adverse finding recorded against a party in whose favour suit or appeal is ultimately decided-He has no right of D appeal against decree to contest any adverse finding against him-Such adverse finding ca11not operate as res judicata in subsequent suit. The respondent-Plaintiff filed a snit for recovery of a snm of Rs. 6,300 as sale price for land, against the appellant on the ground that by a E document the land in question of which he was the owner was transferred to the appellant which the appellant had promised to pay but they did not pay the amount and continued to remain in possession which they should have surrendered for having not paid the stipulated amount. The appellant contested the suit on the ground inter alia that they were tenants under the plaintiff and were already in possession; that the document was obtained F by fraud and undue influence and was, in any case, void being against the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act under which they had become owner of the land. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court with the findings, inter G alia, that the agreement was without consideration and was hit by the provisions of section 91 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and that the defendants were tenants of the land in suit under the plaintiff. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with the findings that the land in question was at no stage sold by the plaintiff - respon- dents to the appellants and consequently they were not entitled to recover H 369 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Rs. 6,300 from the appellants as sale price as the document in question was only an agreement for sale and not a sale deed and that the defendant had failed to prove themselves to be tenants of the disputed land under the plaintiff. B c The plaintiff, however tiled a new suit for possession against the appellants on the basis of the title, pleading inter alia that they were the owner of the land in question and the defendants, appellants who had already been held in the earlier suit that they were not the tenants of the land in suit, were not entitled to retain possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit with the finding that the suit was barred by the prin· ciples of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure and was beyond time. In appeal, the findings recorded by the Trial Court were reversed and the suit was decreed with the findings that it was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 nor was it beyond time. The second appeal filed in the High Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal. D The appellants contended that the findings recorded by the District Judge that the suit of the respondents was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 was erroneous and the appellants h~ving already been held to be tenants under the respondents by the Trial Court in the earlier suit, the suit for possession was not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed by the E District Judge also by the High Court as was done by the Trial Court; that the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the status of the appellants in the previous suit that they were tenants of the land in suit should still be treated to hold the field notwithstanding its reversal by the lower Appellate Court as the lower Appellate Court, bad ultimately decided the appeal in their favour with the result that they being the successfnl party had no F occasion to tile the appeal and challenge the findings and therefore, the findings of the Trial Court could not be treated to have been reversed; that the original findings recorded by the Trial Court on the status of the appellants that they were the tenants of the land under the respondents would operate as res judicata against the respondents who could not be G granted the relief of possession. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Provisions of Order 2 Rule2 of the Civil Procedure Code indicate that if a plaintiff is entitled to severa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.