LexGANGAPPA GURUPADAPPA GUGWAD GULBARGA versus RACHAWWA, WIDOW OF LOCHANAPPA GUGWAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B a 691 .GANGAPPA GURUPAJJAPPA GUGWAD GULBARGA v. RACHAWWA, WIDOW OF LOCHANAPPA GUGWAD & ORS. October 23, 1970 [G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] Res Judicata-/ssue l'e/ating to plaintiff's l'ight to "" fou11d agaim·t plaintiff-Other issues l'egarding merits· of .case also decided against him -Decision irrespect of such other issues whether operates as res judicata ·--Whether only obiter. R wanted 10 adopt L as his son but did not actually do so. In accord- ance with R's will executed in 1919 L inherited R's property a'fter his death. 111 1935 the appellant herein instituted a suit against L and the trustees appointed under R's will. It was the appellant's claim that the will was supplemented by a codicil (this referred to a lette~ written by R to L some time after the execution of the will). Under these documents, according to him, L inherited only a life-estate. He alleged that L was D mismanaging the property and prayed for an injunction directing the trustees to take over management of the properties. The Subordinate Judge framed four issues to the effect ( 1) whether the appellant was entitled to sue, (2) whether L inherited only a life-interest, (3) whether L bad mis- managed the property and ( 4) whether an injunction as prayed should be issued to the trustees. The Subordinate Judge held that L had inherited. not a life-estate but full ownership, and that the appellant had only a contingent right in the property depending on L dying without male issue, E so that it was not possible to grant to the appellant the declaraion be prayed for. L adopted a son C in 1951, and died in 1957. After bis. deilth the appellant filed another suit against L's widow, C. the· adopted son and the surviving trustee. This suit was also based on the claim that L bad inherited only a life-estate under R's will and codicil, The contest- inf defendants raised the plea of res /udicaif; based on the decision in the suit of 1935. 1be plea of res judicata was rejected by the trial court but r accepted by the High Court. In appeal before this Court it was ur4ed on liehalf elf the appellant that the trial court in the suit ·Of 1935 havmg held the suit to be premature and thus decided the preliminary issue against the appellant, its decision on the other issues was only obiter and could not operate as res judicata. G B HELD : The appeal must fail. There was no questior. of the trial of any preliminary issue in the suit of, 1935 the decision of which would obviate the necessity of examining the other pleas raised and coming to a finding thereon. The nature of the right acquired by L under the will of the testator was directly in question and the subordinate judge went elaborately into it to take the view that L had become absomtely entitled to the properties le'ft by the testator. The obseNation referred to in the concluding portion of the Judgment. of the Subordinate Judge is not to be taken as the decision on a preliminary issue so as to render the finding on the other issues mere obiter lmd surplusage. [698 G-699 A] If the final decision in any matter at issue between the parties ts based by a court on its decisions on more than one point-<!acb of which by itself 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971) 2 S.C.R. would be sufficient . for the ultimate decision-the decision on each of these points would operate as resjudica between the pa~ties. The question as to the nature of the estate taken by L unde~ the will ~n~ the dooumcnt called codicil to the will df the testat0r havmg been in issue in the suit of 1935 and the Court having been decided that L had obtained an absolute estate to the property, this decision would bind the appellant in any suhscqucnt litigation such as the present, in which the claim was basc<l on the will and cod cil. !699 B-C) Slu111kar/11/ v. Hi,.11/11/. A.l.R. 1950 P.C. 80. explained end distinguished. Vitlud Yt•shwant Jathar v. Shikandark/t(,11 M11khr11111-kha11 Sarde.~al, [196J] 2 S.C.R. 285. 290, applied. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l 732 of c 1966. . ·Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated June 20, 1966 of tthe Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 97 of 1959. . M. C. Chag/a, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant. D A. K. Sen, S.S. Javali and M. 'veerappa, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The Judgmcrrt of the Court was delivered by MIUcr, J, One Rudrappu Murigop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.