HARBANS SINGH & ORS. versus SANT HARI SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 13-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 250 
A 
HARBANS SINGH & ORS. 
II. 
SANT HARi SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2009) 
B 
JANUARY 13, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.11 - Res-judicata -
Applicability of - Consolidated suits with common dispute -
c Order passed in one of the suits not challenged in appeal -
Permissibility to challenge the order passed in the other suit 
- Held : Such challenge is barred by res-judicata as the order 
in the other suit having not been challenged attained finality. 
D 
Pursuant to a dispute between Management 
Committee and Mohtmim of a Gurudwara, over the 
management rights of the Gurudwara, Management 
Committee as well as respondent-Mohtmim filed separate 
suits. Appellant No.1 was the Vice - President of the 
E Managing Committee. Both the suits were heard together. 
Trial Court decided both the suits in favour of 
respondent-Mohtmim. Management Committee filed 
appeals against order in both the suits. 
Appellants and the Managing Committee preferred 
1-
F separate appeals against the order passed in suit filed by 
the respondent-Mohtmim. They did not prefer appeal 
against the order passed in the suit filed by Managing 
Committee. First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. 
G 
Appellants filed second appeal against the order 
passed by First Appellate Court. High Court dismissed 
the appeal holding that since the findings recorded in 
y 
other suit attained finality having not been challenged in 
first appeal, appellants were barred to challenge the 
H 
250 
-1 
HARBANS SINGH & ORS. v. SANT HARi SINGH & ORS. 251 
propriety of the orders of the Courts below. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that 
principles of res - judicata was not applicable in the 
present case as in the suit filed by the Managing 
Committee the appellant was not a party. 
8 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Appellant does not claim any right, title and 
interest in his individual capacity. He was the Vice 
President of the Managing Committee. Thus, for all intent C 
and purport, he was also a plaintiff in the suit filed by 
Managing committee. The judgment and decree passed 
in the suit filed by respondent No.1 might not have been 
binding upon the appellant, had he claimed any right or 
interest over the said property in his individual capacity o 
and not as a member of the Managing Committee. 
Indisputably, the Managing Committe~ did not file any 
second appeal against the judgment and decree passed 
against.it. The said judgment and decree, therefore, 
attained finality. Appellants, in law, were required to prefer 
E 
another second appeal against the judgment and decree 
passed in the said suit. The principle of res-judicata in the 
aforementioned fact situation, has rightly been applied by 
the High Court. [Paras 12 and 13] [255-G-H; 256-C-D] 
Premier Tyres Ltd. vs. Kera/a State Road Transport 
F 
Corpn. 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 146 and Union of India Vs. V. 
Pundarikakshudu and Sons and Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 168, 
relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
G 
1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 146 
Relied on Para 15 
(2003) 8 sec 168 
Relied on Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 100 
H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment and final order dated 2.3.2006 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Regular 
Second Appeal No. 4657 of 2003. 
S.S. Chahar, Sanjeev V.K. Pabbi, Shikha Roy Pabbi, 
Pradeep Kumar Dahiya, Ajit Kumer, S.K. Sabharwal and P.N. 
Puri for the Appellants. 
P.S. Patwalia, Tushar Bakshi, D.K. Tripathi and Jagjit 
C Singh Chhabra for the Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
5.8. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The dispute between the parties in this matter is in 
regard to management of Gurudwara Sant Bela Sahib Patshahi 
). 
Naumin (for short, "the said Gurudwara") situated in Village 
Kajal Majra and in Village Shergarh Bara. Sant Surjan Singh 
is the founder of the said Gurudwara. He had given Jhe right of 
E management of the said Gurudwara to Jagat Singh, who died 
in an accident during his life time. On or about 6.5.1982, he 
executed a general power of attorney appointing (1) Balu Singh 
s/o Talok Singh (Nabardar), (2) Harbans Singh s/o Ram Singh; 
and (3) Sant Nand Kaur widow of Jagat Singh as his attorneys 
F in terms whereof they were conferred the powers to manage 
the whole of the property of the said Gurudwara. 
Clauses (3) and (4) of the said power 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.