MALKHAN SINGH versus SOHAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 02-09-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

747 
MALKllAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
SOllAN SINGH & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1985 
[E.S. VENKATARJIMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act (as it stood 
before the Amendment Act of 1963) section 49 -
Bar to civil 
jurisdiction and/or applicability of the principle of res 
judicata, when there is ·no provision for the adjudication of 
rights and title after the 
statements of proposals had become 
C 
final under section 23 of the Act and if in the mutation proceed-
ings the issue of adoptions is found against. 
Kishan Singh, Natha Singh and Guman Singh were three 
brothers. Kishan Singh had no issue while Natha Singh had three 
sons: Chajju, 
Rambir and Malkhan Singh; Guman Singh had two 
sons: Solian Singh and Rohan Singh. Kishan Singh was possessed of 
some agricultural land and also a house. The village, where the 
agricultural plots of Kishan Singh were situate was brought under 
Consolidation of Holdings Act, the rights and title of Kishan 
Singh were determined in these proceedings and eventually chak 
No. 
14 was allotted to him. Although the notification under 
section 52 had not been issued bringing to an end the consolida-
tion proceedings, the statement of proposals (allotment of chak) 
had ~ 
confirmed under section 23 of the Act. 
1. At this stage Kishan Singh died and a dispute arose 
about his heirship. There were. two sets of competitive claimants. 
D 
E 
Malkhan Singh son of Natha Singh claimed to be adopted son of 
F 
Kishan Singh while the two other sons of Natha Singh and the 
sons of Guman Singh formed the other set and claimed to succeed 
Kishan Singh alongwith Malkhan Singh jointly as nephew denying 
the factum of adoption of Malkhan Singh 
by Kishan Singh. The 
consolidation authorities found that Malkhan Singh was not the 
adopted son. 
G 
2. When the village was denotified under section 52 of the 
Act and the consolidation proceedings came to an end, 
Malkhan 
Singh filed a suit· claiming to .be the adopted son . of the 
deceased. The claim was resisted by the defendants. They denied 
the factum of adoption set up by the ·plaintiff and they also 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
pleaded the bar of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and 
section 49 of the Consolidation Act. The bar of section 49 set up 
in the written statement was, however, given up. The trial Court 
disniissed the suit holding 
that Malkhan Singh was not the 
adopted son. On appeal the civil and Sessions Judge reversed the 
finding ot the trial court and decreed the suit holding that 
Malkhan Singh was the adopted son of Kishan Singh and that he was 
given in adoption by his mother after the death of her husband. 
Feeling aggrieved, the respondents took up the matter to the High 
Court in second appeal and the High Court in its turn allowed the 
appeal and dismissed the suit on a short ground that the suit 
giving rise to appeal was barred by the principles of res judi-
csta as the question of adoption had already been determined by 
the consolidation authorities during consolidation proceedings 
and that decision could not be upset by any other court as provi-
ded by section 49 of the said Act and the earlier decision of the 
consolidation authorities would operate · as res judicsta on 
general principles. In the view that the High Court took it did 
not decide.the question of adoption. Hence the appeal by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HKLD: 
1.1 The decision of the consolidation authorities 
may operate as a bar on the principles of res judicsta as 
correctly laid down in Raj I-akplwd Dasi's case. In the instant 
case there has been no adjudication of the rights and title of 
Malkhan Singh. Under the Consolidation Act as prevailing at that 
time there was no provision for the adjudication of rights and 
title after the statement of proposals had become final. The 
consolidation authorities, thereafter, were oilly required to 
maintain the record and in so doing they could also entertain an 
application for IDlltation. The application filed by Malkhan Singh 
to succeed Kishan Singh was virtually an application for 1D11tation 
and the decision of the consolidation authorities that Malkhan 
Singh was not an adopted son of Kishan Singh would not amount to 
a decision.of the title and interest of Malkhan Singh. [751 G-11, 
752 A-<:] 
1.2 It is well settled that the 1D11tation proceedings do not 
decide the rights and title of the parties and 

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