RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus VITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 09-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 222 
~..,· 
A 
RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & 
ORS. 
~ > 
v. 
• 
VITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7184-7185 of 2001) 
~ 
B 
.... 
OCTOBER 9, 2009 
·-. L 
[B.N. AGRAWAL, G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
" 
Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958 -
,\>' 
\. 
c s.3(1)(b) -
Suit against defendants for injunction from 
interfering with possession of Watan Land - Plaintiffs claiming 
to be Watandar declared by the competent authority in the 
.. 
year 1941, being nearest relatives of deceased Watandar -
Defendants claiming to be Watandar on the basis of order of 
D competent authority passed in the year 1931 declaring him 
to be adopted son of the deceased Watandar - Suit decreed, 
~ 
concluding that defendant was not the adopted son of 
deceased Watandar - Re-grant of land to plaintiffs By 
Revenue Authorities uls.5(1) of the Act -
Subsequently 
/ 
E defendant initiated proceedings before Revenue Authorities 
;. 
(SDO) and was declared as Watandar on the basis that order 
of 1931 proved that he was the adopted son - Plaintiffs' 
... 
second suit for declaration of order of SDO illegal ab initio -
Suit decreed and upheld by first appellate court - High Court 
) 
F setting aside the decree - On appeal, held: Defendant was 
,_ 
precluded from raising the issue of adoption before SDO -
Issue of adoption having been decided in previous suit, would 
.. 
l 
operate as res-judicata - The finding in previous suit wa.~ 
' 
binding on the defendant - Jurisdiction of c;ivil court not 
.,.)_ 
G excluded as the claim before Revenue Authorities was based 
on the factum of adoption - Issue of adoption was decided 
by civil competent court, SDO could not have decided that + 
issue -Land re-granted to plaintiffs u/s. 5(1 ), having become 
final, cannot be reviewed de novo by SDO - Defendants' 
H 
222 
RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. v. 
223 
VITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
action was time\ barred in approaching the authority after 14 
A 
i::.. 
years from the date the decree in previous suit attained finality 
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 - Principles of res-
judicata - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of civil court vis-a-vis 
Revenue Court - Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 27. 
B 
Appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit, against respondent 
No. 1 and others for an order of permanent injunction. 
Plaintiffs claimed that they being the nearest relatives of 
.) 
the Watandars of the suit land were their representatives. 
+ 
Their right as Watandar was declared by the Collector in 
C 
the year 1941. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit 
claiming that his right as Watandar had been established 
in 1931 by Mamlatdar, on his application ulss. 15 and 18 
of Bombay Hereditaryc-Office Act, 187 4, to recognize him 
as Watandar, after declaring that respondent No. 1 was 
the adopted son of the deceased Watandar. Trial Court D 
decreed the suit concluding that plaintiffs were in 
possession of the suit land; that respondent No. 1 was 
not the adopted son of the deceased Watandar. The order 
of trial court was confirmed in appeal. Second appeal 
against the same was also dismissed. 
E 
During pendency of the second appeal, on 
application by the appellants-plaintiffs under Bombay 
Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, the competent 
authority, after inquiry, passed order u/s. 5 (1) of the Act 
.F 
in 1963 regranting the suit lands in favour of plaintiffs. 
Respondent No. 1 made application in 1976, for 
supply of certified copies of the order passed in 1931 by 
Mamlatdar. He received xerox copy of the said order. In 
a similar application made in 1941, respondent No. 1 was 
G 
informed that the relevant papers were not available as 
the same were destroyed. 
On the basis of the order of 1931, respondent No. 1 
filed application before State Government for direction to 
H 
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R. 
A the competent authority to regrant the suit land to him as 
in earlier proceeding in 1941, he was dispossessed on 
the ground that he was not having relevant documents. 
After direction of State Government, the competent 
B authority (SDO}, after inquiry, u/s. 3(1 )(b) of Bombay 
Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958, concluded that 
the copy of the order of 1931 proved that he was the 
adopted son of the deceased Watandars; and that order 
of the civil court would not have any bearing on the 
,; 
proceedings under the Act. 
) 
c 

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