PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA versus ROCHIRAM NAGDEO

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 20-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PA WAN KUMAR GUPTA 
v. 
ROCHIRAM NAGDEO 
APRIL 20, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908 : 
S.I I-Bar ofresjudicata--Sale deed-Transfer of suit building-Default C 
in payment of rent by tenant-Eviction suit-Tenant raising a plea that sale 
was benami transaction-Trial Court holding the transferee to be real oHner-
Suit dismissed as arrears of rent deposited-Filing of another eviction sui( 
on the ground of bonafide requirement-Tenant re-agitating the issue of 
transferee's title to the suit building-Maintainability of-Held, the findings D 
of the trial court in the first suit that transferee is the real owner had become 
final-Tenant could have challenged the said finding in appeal-Transferee's 
title cannot be re-agitated in subsequent suit as it is barred by res judicata-
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 196I-S. I2 (I) (a) & _(b)-
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, I 988 S. 3 
E 
S. I I-Rule of Res judicata-App/icabi/ity of 
Benami transaction (Prohibition) Act, I 988 
S. 2(a)-Sale deed-Transfer of suit property-Sale consideration 
provided by father of transferee-Held, such sale would not become a benami F 
transaction. 
S. 3(/)-Sa/e Deed-Transfer of suit property-Tenant's plea that sale 
transaction was benami-Onus to prove-Held, lies on the person who alleges 
the s'ale transaction to be benami-Evidence Act, I 872-S. I 06. 
Words & Phrases 
"Paid or Provided"-Meaning and interpretation of in the context of 
S.2(a) of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 
G 
Respondent was the tenant of the suit binding belonging to one 'N'. By H 
767 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. 
[1999] 2 S.C.R . 
A a sale deed, Ext. P.11, 'N' transferred his rights in the suit building to the 
appellant. Appellant filed an eviction suit under S. 12(1) (a) of the Madhya 
Pradesh Accommodation Act, 1961 against respondent on the ground of 
default in payment of rent. Respondent contested the suit raising a plea that 
the suit building was actually transferred in favour of father of appellant and 
appellant being only a benami owner has no right to get eviction. The Trial 
B Court, while holding that the appellant was the real owner, dismissed the suit 
as the arrears of rent were deposited in the Court during the pendency of 
the suit. Thereafter, appellant filed an eviction suit under S.12(1) (f) of the 
Act on the ground of bonafide requirement of the building. Respondent 
raised a plea that the sale in favour of appellant was hit under S. 3 of the 
C Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Appellant contended that the 
respondent cannot raise the issue regarding benami transaction as it was 
bared by resjudicata. The Trial Court while rejecting the plea regarding 
. res judicata, granted Eviction order holding that appellant was the real owner 
and his bona fide requirement was established. The said findings were 
upheld buy first appellate court. However, on second appeal, the High Court, 
D while upholding the findings regarding resjudicata, reversed the findings 
of courts below holding that the sale transaction was void bein
1g hit by 
Benami Act. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended. that the plea of the 
E 
respondent based on S.3 of the Benami Act was barred by res judicata ; 
respondent has failed to show that Ext. P. 11 sale deed was of a benami 
transaction; the High Court went wrong in fastening the appellant with the 
burden of proof the prove that Ext. P. 11 was not of a benami transaction. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. The respondent-tenant cannot re-agitate the issue regarding 
appellants title to the building as it is barred by resjudicata.[115-A-B-C-D) 
1.2. The rules of res judicata incorporated in S. 11 of the Code of Civil 
G Procedure prohibits the court from trying an issue which "has been directly 
and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties", and 
has been heard and finally decided by that court. In the instant case, the 
finding made in the first suit that appellant was the real owner of the 
building as per Ext. P. 11-sale deed became final. There was no bar in law 
for the defendant to file an appeal against that judgment. If he does not 
H choose to file the appeal, he cannot thereby avert the bar of res judicata in 
-
P.K. GUPTA v. R. NAGDEO 
769 
~he subsequent suit. (774-A-B] 
1.3. If dismissal of the prior suit was on a ground affecting the 
maintainability of the su

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