LexHAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS. versus CANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 29 : 2024 INSC 467 Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8829 of 2010) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the present suit (claiming title and possession over the suit land) as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata inasmuch as there was no adjudication of the rights of the co-defendants (including appellant) in the previous suit with regard to the suit land and the issue therein was not directly or indirectly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata – Rights of co-defendants – The title suit no.9/89 of the plaintiff- appellant was decreed by the Court of the first instance – In appeal, the First appellate Court reversed the decree on the ground that the suit was hit by the principle of res judicata in view of an earlier suit no.8/64 instituted by M wherein the plaintiff-appellant was defendant no.2 – The second appeal was dismissed on the ground that it did not state any substantial question of law – Propriety: Held: The lis in the previous suit i.e. Suit No.8/64 was regarding ownership and entitlement of M over the entire 5.38 acres of land of village Ramgarh qua the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh; the plaintiff-appellant and other defendants in the said suit; whereas the controversy in the present suit is quite distinct with regard to only 0.30 acres of the suit land vis-à-vis the plaintiff-appellant and the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh – The suit, as filed by M claiming right, title and interest over 5.38 acres of land of village Ramgarh was dismissed simpliciter without adjudication of any rights of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land vis-à-vis the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh – It is a settled law that the principle of res judicata is applicable not only between the plaintiff and the defendants but * Author 30 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports also between the co-defendants – In applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants, primarily three conditions are necessary to be fulfilled, namely, (i) there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants; (ii) there is necessity to decide the said conflict in order to give relief to plaintiff; and (iii) there is final decision adjudicating the said conflict – In the instant case, there was no conflict of interest between the co-defendants in the earlier Suit No. 8 of 64 inasmuch as the plaintiff-appellant was independently claiming rights over 0.30 acres of suit land whereas the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh was claiming rights over 2.55 acres of the land which formed part of the Estate of R without asserting that the land settled in its favour is the same as claimed by plaintiff-appellant or that there was any encroachment upon the land settled in its favour – M was claiming the entire Estate of 5.38 acres of land and her claim was defeated as she was unable to prove the grant of the said land in her favour with no specific finding by the court regarding the claims set up by the codefendants, the inter se dispute of the co-defendants as raised in the present suit never came to be adjudicated – In view of the facts and circumstances, the principle of res judicata is not attracted – As far as claim of the plaintiff-appellant is concerned, the plaintiff- appellant by sufficient evidence has proved the settlement of the suit land by the R in his favour – It stands proved by the Amin report (Exh.8) dated 15.04.1942 20 and the Hukumnama (Exh.9) dated 07.04.1943 as well as the Rent receipt (Exh.6, 6/A and 7) – The order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dated 07.01.1963 (Exh.16) directing realization of rent from the plaintiff-appellant also confirms the above settlement and its subsequent approval by the State on enhancement of rent – All these documents have not been confronted by the other side – The fact that the name of the plaintiff-appellant was also mutated in the revenue records proves it beyond doubt, in the absence of any contrary evidence that he is in possession of the suit land. [Paras 20, 21, 23, 25, 33] Case Law Cited Govindammal (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Ors. v. Vaidiyanathan and Ors. [2018] 11 SCR 1092 : (2019) 17 SCC 433 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 31
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.