LexRAM GOBINDA DAWAN & ORS. versus SMT. BHAKTABALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:340 RAM GOBINDA DA WAN & ORS. v. SMT.,BHAKTABALA Janitary 8, 1971 [J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAJDIALINGAM, JJ.] Practice-Re~ judicata- Land acquisitiod proceedings-Claim of one party to compensation dismissed for default-Acquisition of other plots -Interest of parties same-Claim of title-If e~rlier decision operates as ·res · judicata. Certain plots in a Municipality were acquired under the Land Acqui- •ition Act, 1894, and the predecessor of the appellants and the predeces- Eor of the respondents, each claimed the compensation amount on the basis of title. The matter was referred to the Court of the District Judge. The claim of the predecessor of the respondents was dismissed for default and the claim of the predecessor of the appellants was therefore upheld. O:rtain other plots pe'rtaining to thr same title and interest were later .acquired and th• question arose as to whether appellants or respondents were entitled to the compensation. Since the test of res judicata is the identity of _title in tht two litigations and not the identity of the actuai property involved, the appellants pleaded that the earlier decision by the District Jud11e operated as res judicata. HELD : The earlier decision did not operate as res judicata against ihc respondents in~smuch as the matter was not heard and finally decided on merits after contest. If a matter was heard and finally decided on merits, then such a decision operates as res judicata, even though an appeal against the decision was dismissed on a preliminary ~round such a1 limitation default in printin1, or default of appears.nee! because, it .amounts to the appeal havin11 been heard and finally deeded on the merits whatever might have been the around of dismi11al of the appeal, and has the effect of confirming the decision of the trial court on merits. '.But If there hacl been no contest, no hearing and final decl1Jon by any ·court, at any stage, the decision would not operate a1 rts /udlcata. [350 A·El . Raj Laks~ml Dasi & Or.. v, Banamall Sen & Ors., [1953] S.C.R. 154, •Pul~v~rthl Benkata Subba Rao & Ors. v. Yalluri Jagannadha Rao & Ors., [1964] 2 S.C.R. 310 and Sheodan Singh v. Smt. Daryao Kunwar, [ 19661 3 S.C.R. 300. referred to. . A B c D E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 436 and G · 437 of 1967. Appeals from the judgmenv and decrees dated March 27, 1962 ·of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeals Nos. 311 and 312 of 1956. D. N. Mukher;ee, for the appellants (in all the appeals). The respondent did not appear. ;- A B c D E F G .. H R. G. DAWAN v. BHAKTABALA (Vaidialingam, J.) 341 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Valdlaliugam, J, Theiie two appeals on certificate are direct- ed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated March 27, 1962 in First Appeals from the Original Decree Nos. 311 ano 312 of 1956. Two plots of land bearing No. 936 of Mouza Asansol a.nd plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated December 13, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette of 25th December, 194 7. The declaration under s. 6 dated December 30, 1947 was published in the Calcutta Gazette on 8th January, 1948. For plot No. 936 of Mouza Asansol measuring about 31 acres, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1707 I - including Rs. · 1 J.- 1/6 on account of the .landlord's interest. The entire compensa- tion in respect of this plot was directed to be paid to Bhaktabala Dasi, the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1967. In respect of plot No. 9202 of Mouza Asansol Municipality, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded as compensation a sum of Rs. 825/15/6 including Rs. 6/5/6 on account of the landlord's interest. This entire amount of compensation was directed to b~ paid to Bhaktabala Dasi and her sister Subasini Dasi. It may be mentioned that Bhaktabala Dasi is the first respondent and on the death of Subasini Dasi, her son Sunil Kumar Roy, who has been impleaded in the proceedings is the second respondent in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1967. Before the Land Acquisition Collector, in respect of both these plots, one Kashi Nath Dawn claimed title to the land and as such to the er.tire compensation amount. The appellants in these two appeals are the legal repre- sentatives oi Kashi Nath Dawn. The case of Kashi Nath Dawn was that bo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.