SHEODAN SINGH versus SMT. DARYAO KUNWAR

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 14-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHEODAN SINGH 
I'. 
SMT. DARYAO KUNWAR 
January 14, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, Y. RA~SWAMI 
AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
Code of civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908). s. I I-Appeals diomissed tU 
time ba"ed, failure to print records-If res judicata in conMcted appeal6. 
The appellant filed two suits in the Court of lhe Civil Judge, one for 
declaration of his title to the suit property and lhc second for other reliefs. 
While these suits were pending the respondent instituted two suits in the 
Munsif"s court against the appellant claiming joint ownership to the sail 
proP."rty and other n:lieh. The four suits were tried together by 
the 
Qvil Judge. 
Some of the i>lues were common to all the suits and one 
of tho common i>.iues rolating to the title of the parties were found in 
favour of the respondeoL The Civil Judge dismi...oo the appellant's title 
suit, decreed his other suit partly, and decreed the two suits of the rcs-
ponden I. The appellant filed appeak against the decree in each suit. The 
High Coull dismissed the two appeals arising out of tho respondent"• suits, 
one as time barn:d, and the other for failure to apply for translation and 
printing of the record. 
As the 1ille of the respondent to the suit property 
bad become final on account of such dismissal, the respondent prayed for 
the dismissal o[ the other lwo appeals also, as the main question involved 
therein, was the samo. 
The High Court agreed that tho appeals were 
barred by res iudicata and dismissed them. Against these orders of dis· 
~. the appellant filed appeals to this Court, and con~dcd that (i) 
the title to lhc property was not directly and >ubstantially in issue in the 
respondent's suits; (ii) The 
Munsifs Court could not try the titlo suit 
filed by the appellant; (iii) it could not bo said that appeals arising out 
of the respondent"< suits were Conner suits and "" such the dtcismn therein 
would bo res ;udicata and (iv) the two appeals dismisscd--0no on the 
ground of limitation, and lhe other on lhe gr011J1d of not printinii the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
reconls, could not be said to be heard and finally decided. 
y 
HELD : 
The appeals must be dismissed. 
(il '!be contention that tho issue as to title was not directly and •ubs· 
1an1ially in issue in the respondent's suits must be rejected. 
The judg· 
ment of the Civil Judge showed that this issue was raised in the respon· 
dent's suits, that it was directly and substantially in issue in those suits 
also, and did arise out of the pleading'< of the parties. [306 CJ 
(ii) It is the court which decides the fonner suit whose jurisdiction to 
try tho subsequent suit has to be considered, and not the court in which 
the former suit may have been filed. 
Though the n:spondent"s sulla may 
line beeo iled in the Munsif's court, they wore ttanaferred to tho court 
of the Civil Judge and were decided by him. 
Therefore, the contention 
that the Munsif before whom the n:spondeot's suits were filed, could not 
try the subsequent title suit of the appell:int had no force. [306 El 
(iii) The High Court's decision in tho two ap~ls arising from tho 
JlOIPOndent's suits were undoubtedly earlier and tben:foro the condition 
that there should have been a decision in a former suit 10 give rise to ru 
;udic:ata in a subsequent suit was satisfied in the present case. [307 CJ 
G 
H 
. , 
' 
~ 
• 
• ' 
.-· 
I 
-"" 
• 
SHEODAN SINGH v. DARYAO (Wanchoo, J.) 
301 
A 
Nahari v. Shanker, [1950) S.C.R. 754, distinguished. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(iv) Where the trial coun has decided two suits having common issues 
on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom and one of them is 
ilismissed on some preliminary ground, like limitation or default in 
printing. with tho result that the trial court's decision stands confirmed, 
the decision or the appeal court will be res judicata and the appeal court 
must be deemed to have heard and finally decided the matter. In such a 
caoc the result of the decision of the appeal coun is to confirm the decision 
of the trial court given on merits, and if that is so, the decision of 
the appeal court will be res judicata whatever may be the reason to~ the 
disrnisssl. It would be a different matter, however, 
where the declSion 
of the appeal court does not result in the confirmation of tho decision of 
the trial court given on the merits, as for example, where the appeal 
court hold that tho trial court had no 
jurisdiction and dismisses 
the 
appeal, even th

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