MAHILA BAJRANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus BADRIBAI W/O JAGANNATH AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 19-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHILA BAJRANGI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BADRIBAI W/O JAGANNATH AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 19, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 11 Explanation viii-Principle 
of res judicata-Operation of-Held, a qecision on direct and substantial 
issue in a former suit between the same parties which is heard and finally C 
decided, operates as res judicata and not merely any finding on every incident 
or collateral question-Decision in mutation proceeding in revenue court 
would not operate as res judicata since such proceedings are not j11dicial 
proceeding and revenue court is not a civil court of concurrent and competent 
jurisdiction. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Sections 32 and 33: 
Nall/re of-Held, the provisions are exceptions to the general principle 
D 
that best evidence should be led in trial. 
E 
Admissibility of statement as to fact in issue or relevant fact as 
admission-Held, such statement, to be admissible as admission, must be 
relevant and must be s11ch as may be proved against the person making ii 
or his representative in interest and not on his behalf unless the person 
making it were dead. 
F 
Section 33-Statements made before reven11e court-Relevance of for 
proving facts in subsequelll proceedings-Held, not relevant because 
proceeding before revenue court is not a j11dicial proceeding-In the facts 
of the case it is not proved that statement was made before authorized person 
in law to take evidence. 
G 
Plaintiff-appellant, daughter of 'G' filed a suit for declaration of title 
and recovery of possession of the suit property against the defendant-
predecessor of respondent and tenants. She claimed to be entitled to the suit 
property by virtue of a gift deed in her favour by her mother and to be in H 
557 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A possession thereof; and that defendant forcibly dispossessed her. Case of 
defendant who claimed to be adopted son of 'G', was that since the marriage 
of the mother of plaintiff with 'G' was not recognized, the entire property of 
'G' devolved upon him. He had relied on entries in School Leaving Certificate 
and School Admission Register showing 'G' as his father. 
B 
In order to prove the fact that her mother was wife of 'G', plaintiff relied 
on the statements of her mother and that of the defendant made before revenue 
court in mutation proceedings regarding the property of 'G'. However, as per 
the evidence on record, plaintifrs mother was earlier married to someone 
and when she joined 'G', plaintiffwas·already a child. Trial Court dismissed 
C the suit. In appeal Single Judge of High Court decreed the suit and relying 
on statements made before revenue court held that plaintiffs' mother was 
married to .'G'; that plaintiff was daughter of 'G'; and that adoption of defendant 
was not proved. Division Bench allowed the appeal and held that no presumption 
could be raised about the marriage of plaintifrs mother with 'G'; that plaintiff 
has not established that she was born of her mother through 'G'; and that 
D there was no evidence on record to prove adoption of the defendant. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that since in the mutation 
proceedings, the revenue authorities had decided in favour of the plaintiff, 
the same operated as res judicata in view of explanation viii to Section 11 
CPC, and hence the subsequent suit was barred; and that in view of the finding 
E of Division Bench that adoption of defendant was not proved, relief of possession 
should have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. It can not legitimately be claimed that the Tehsildar or 
F authorities exercising powers of mutation (original, appellate or revisional) 
have been accorded the status of civil courts or courts of exclusive jurisdiction 
and for that matter, to use such orders as basis or source for asserting a 
claim of res judicata before a competent civil court in a subsequent suit 
involving adjudication of title to the immovable property. Mutation proceedings 
G before revenue authorities are not judicial proeeedings in any Court of law 
and does not decide questions of title to immovable property. Hence Explanation 
viii to Section 11 CPC can be of no assistance to the appellants. fS64-F, G, Bl 
1.2. Revenue authority ordering mutation of revenue records cannot be 
Protanto held to be a civil court of concurrent and competent jurisdiction to 
H

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