LexRAJ LAKSHMI DASI AND OTHERS versus BANAMALI SEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I 1953 -!C~hardso Chclmria v. Radha Kissen Ghamria and Others. 1953 -· Oct. 37. ii>4 SUPRE1ME° COURT REPORTS (1953j iµcurred in the High Court. and those incurred in• this court in these appeals. Appeal No. 12 allowed. • Appeal No. 18 dismissed. Agent for the appellant.in C. A. No. 12 'and res- pondent in C.A. No. 12: p; 'K. Chatterjee. Agent for the respondebts. in ·q. A._No. ~2 and appellan~~ in C. A. No. 13: Sulmniar Ghose. -~ RAJ LAKSHMi DASI 'AND OTHERS v. BANAMALI SEN AND OTHERS BHOLANA'l'H 0 SEN AND OTHERS v. RAJ Lf,.KSHMI DASI AND Q'fHERS. (MEHR CHAND :r-&;J}JI,-1.JAN; CHANDRASEKHAR/I.' AIYAR and BHA~WATI JJ.] Res iudicata-Land acquisition proceeditius-Dispute .as t.o title between rival claimants-Decision after contest-Whether operates as res jud\ca.ta. in stibsequent su,it-Ejfec.t of decisio-n on mortg/J/jees. Where the right to receive compensation for property acquir6d in land aequisitioh proceedings as b8tween rival clainla.nts depends on the title to the p~operty acquired an~ the dispute as to title is raised· by the parties and is decided by the Land Acqui- sition Judge after ·contest, thiB decision as to ~itle operates as ,:es juif.,icata in a·subsequent suit betweerl the same parties· on the ques- tion of title_. The binding force of a judgment delivered under the Land Acquisition Act depends on general principles' of lq.w a.nd not on s. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the decision of a Iiand Acquisition Judge wciuld operate as res judicata even though he was not competent to try the subsequent suit. , If a mortgagee intervenes in ln.nd acquisipion. proceedings and makes a claim for compensation,. and any question of title arises about the title of the mortgagor in respect to .the land acquired which affects the claim for compensation, ne- has every right to prot.ect that title and if he defends that title and the issueis decided against his mortgagor. the decision would operate as res judic~ta even as against the mortgagee. Certain premises wb.ich formed part of the" estate of a de- cieased person were acquired in ~nd a.cquiaition proceedinga.- 'fhere was a triangular contest about the right to the compen- ~ation moµey between A and B, two rival claimants to": four a.nn4s 8.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 155 share in the estate of-the deceased, and d; ~.mortgagee from one 19~3 of the claimants. Th6 three parties required the. question of apportionment to be referred to the Conrt·and a·Special Judge Raj Lakshmi who was appointed decided the question of title to,.the fout•annas 'Dasi share upon which the right to receive the comp~nsation de~ and Others pended and made an ,award. The 'Land Acquisition Judge'. and v. High Court found the title in favour of .B after due coriteSt .Banamali Sen between the parties but the Privy Council reversed the decision and OthM·s. and de9ided thequestioti' of-title in favour of A. In a subsequent suit between ·the same parties the question of title was a.gain raised : Held (i) that the decision of the frivy Couµcil on. the ques-- tion of title, in the land acquisition proceedings operated as res judicata as against B as well as C, even though the Land Acquisi- tion Judge >VaS a Speci.al ·Judge who would have had no: juris-- diction to try the subsequent suit; (ii) that the rule of res judicata was applicable even though the subject mattei: of dispute in the land acquisition proceedings · was the com.Pen~.atiOn money and not the property which was in dispute in thSi su}Jsequent' suit~ . (iii) the fact that the mortg~gee did not appear at' the 'hearing before the Prhi:y Council was immaterial as the judgments in the first two courts Were given after full contest. Ramaohandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (19221 49 I.A. 129, and Bhagwati v. Ram Kali [19391 66 I.A. 145, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 110 and 111 of 1951. Appeals from the Jndg- menb and Decree dated May 6, 1946, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. (Biswa.s and Chakra.- vartti JJ.) in Original Decree No. 43 of 1942 wLth Civil Rule 399 of 1945, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated June 3Q, 194)., of the Second Court of Addi~ional. Subprdina.te Judge, 24 Pa.rg'a.nas, in Title Suit No. 63 of 1938. · N. C. Chatterjee (fjaroj. Kumar Chatterjee and 21.. ty. Sinha, with him) for the appellants in Civil Appea.11 No, llO. Panchanan Ghose (S. N. Mukherjee and Benoyendra Prasad Bagchi,_with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.