RICHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. versus DALIP

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 09-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RICHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
DALIP 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1987 
A 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
'!-· 
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: Section 77(3)-Decree for ejectment 
·-" 
I 
passed by Revenue Court-Whether bar to subsequent suit in Civil 
Court for determining title. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 11-Res judicata-
Applicability'of-Decree for ejectment passed by Revenue Court under 
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887-Whether applicable to subsequent suit in a 
Civil Court for determining relationship between landlord and the 
tenant. 
A suit was filed by the appellants in the Court of the Assistant 
Collector seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant from his lands, 
under s. 77(3) proviso 2(e) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 on the 
ground that he had defaulted in the payment of rent, and it was 
decreed. In execution of the decree, the respondent was ejected from 
the suit land. No appeal was filed from the said decree but the respon-
dent filed a suit in the Civil Court against the appellants alleging that he 
was iu fact a mortgagee in possession of the suit land and not a tenant 
and that the decree of ejectment passed by the Revenue Court was 
without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity, and claimed restoration 
c 
D 
E 
F 
of the possession of the suit land from which he had been wrongly 
ousted by the Revenue Court. The suit was dismissed by the Subordi-
nate Judge holding that the claim of the respondent to be a mortgagee In 
possession of the suit land was wrong and that the order of the Revenue 
Court was perfectly In order and within that court'sjurisdictional com-
petence and that it was of a binding nature on the respondent and was 
not open to challenge in subsequent proceedings. The appellant asserted 
G 
that the claim by the respondent in the subsequent suit was barred by 
the principles of res judicata. The suit was dismissed. 
Jn appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the findings of 
the trial court and decreed the suit of the respondent. The appellants 
filed r~ 
second appeals before the High Court. 
93 
H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] I S.C.R. 
A 
A Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that, in view of 
the conflicting judgments on the points for determination in the case, 
the matter required to be referred to a larger bench. The Full Bench, by 
a majority view, held that the decision ofthe Revenue Court under s. 77 
of the Punjab Tenancy Act upon the relationship oflandlord and tenant 
between the parties would not operate as res judicata and it would be 
B 
open to challenge in a subsequent suit or in other collateral proceedings 
between the parties, and remitted the matter back to the Single Judge 
for disposal in accordance with the above decision. 
c 
The question for consideration in the appeals by Special Leave 
before this Court was: as to how far an order of eviction of a person by 
the Revenue Court un(ler s. 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 
operated as res judicata for a title suit filed by a person claiming to be a 
mortgagee and not a tenant of the alleged landlord. 
Dismissing the appeals by special leave, this Court, 
• 
D 
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in holding that there was no 
res judicata so far as the second suit based on the assertion of the title of 
the respondent was concerned. [105C-D] 
2.1 The overall scheme of the Act is to provide speedy remedies 
with regard to disputes between the landlords and tenants and also 
E 
under what circumstances that relationship came to an end. Sections 98 
and 99 do not in any way affect the question whether the decision of the 
Revenue Court under the Revenue Act can operate as res judicata in 
certain cases. The limits of the jurisdiction would be apparent by the 
fact that all suits by a landlord to eject a tenant do not encompass suits 
to decide whether a person was a tenant or not or whether the plaintiff 
F 
was a landlord or not. [98C; 99F-G] 
2.2 Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts should not be inferred 
easily. It must be clearly provided for and established. If the dispute 
was as to the nature of the relationship of landlord and tenant between 
the parties, the Revenue Court under the Punjab Tenancy Act had no 
G 
jurisdiction; when there was admitted position, the relationship of land-
lord and tenant was accepted, the remedies and rights of the parties 
should be worked out under the scheme of the Act. [ 103C-D I 
2.3 A salutory and simple test to apply in determining

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