K. ETHIRAJAN (DEAD) BY LRS. versus LAKSHMI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 26-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
K. ETHIRAJAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
LAKSHMI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 
1948-Sections 5(2) and 18(4)-Properties being owned by a widow-
Appe/lant-plaintiff being widow's sister's son was allowed to occupy a 
portion of the properties-Suit for partition of property after widow's C 
death-Respondent-defendant opposing the suit claiming right to properties 
by inheritance being son of widow's husband's brother-Joint patta having 
been granted to the parties in proceedings under the Act recognising their 
joint ownership and possession-Judgments in previous litigation between 
the parties ho/ding appellant-plaintiff to be in possession as owner-Trial D 
.court and first appellate court, hence, granting preliminary decree of 
partition in favour of appellant-plaintiff-High Court in second appeal 
dismissing the suit-Held, the two subordinate courts were right in 
granting decree in favour of the appellant-plaintiff--High Court in second 
appeal was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the 
tu·o courts below-Based on the judgments in previous litigation and the E 
joint patta, an indefeasible right to continue to occupy the property as 
owner had been created in favour of the appellant-plaintiff-Second 
Appeal-Power of High Court. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 11-Res Judicata-Principle p 
of restated-Held, principle of res judicata is attracted even though in the 
previous suit only a part of the property was involved when in the 
subsequent suit, the whole property is the subject matter. 
The properties in question were owned by a widow 'G'. Appellant-
plaintiff was G's sisters's son and was allowed to occupy a portion of G 
the properties since before coming into force the (Tamil Nadu) Estates 
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. After the death 
of 'G', appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the property. On 
the other hand, respondent-:defendant claimed right to the properties 
by inheritance claiming relationship with 'G' as son of her husband's H 
33 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A brother. The trial court and the first appellate court relied on the 
judgments passed in the previous litigation with regard to the same 
properties between both the parties wherein it was held by the City 
Civil Court that appellant-plaintiff having remained in continuous 
possession of the property as owner, had perfected his title by remaining 
B in adverse possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years; 
and in appeal it was held that appellant-plaintiff was in possession since 
much prior to the grant of the alleged license of permission to 
respondent-defendant. On the basis of these judgments in previous 
litigation between the parties coupled with joint patta granted by the 
Director of Settlement in proceedings under Section 18(4) of the Act 
C which recognised the joint ownership and possession of appellant-
plaintiff and respondent-defendant, the trial court and first appellate 
court granted a preliminary decree of partition of the properties in 
favour of appellant-plaintiff. 
D 
In second appeal preferred by the legal representatives of 
respondent-defendant, the High Court reversed the judgments of the 
trial court and first appellate court and dismissed the suit of partition 
filed by appellant-plaintiff. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
On behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, it was contended that the 
joint patta granted in proceedings under the Act of 1948 followed by 
the judgments in the previous litigation between the parties conclusively 
establish the co-ownership of appellant-plaintiff to the properties; that 
the High Court in second appeal clearly committed an error of law and 
F jurisdiction in interfering with the concurrent finding of the two courts 
below; that the judgments in the previous Iitigat1on between the parties 
operate as res judicata against the respondent-defendant. 
On behalf of respondent-defendant, it was contended that grant 
of joint patta under the Act of 1948 is not conclusive on·the question 
G of title and it is only civil court which could take a final decision on 
the question of title and claim of co-ownership by the appellant-
plaintiff; that the patta proceedings under the Act of 1948 are for the 
limited purpose of recognising possession of the parties in actual 
occupation c

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