STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus B. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 09-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
v.
B. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRs & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 17486 of 2017)
AUGUST 09, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.11, 96 and Or. XLI, r.22,
Or.XLI, r.33 – Three separate suits were filed against the defendants
including the State – First and second suit were in respect of land
falling in Survey No.9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village – Third suit
was in respect of land falling in Survey Nos.49 and 50 in Rasoolpura
Village – State contested on the ground that the land in all the three
suits fell in Survey No.43 of Village Bholakpur, which is a
Government Shikkam Talab – All the suits tried together – First two
suits dismissed, however, the third suit was decreed against the State
– State filed appeal against the decree in the third suit, which was
objected on the ground that the findings recorded on Issue No.1 in
the first and second suit have to be treated as decree and would
operate as res judicata – High Court inter alia held that without filing
cross-objections, the Govt. cannot challenge the findings of the
trial court – On appeal, held: Present is a case where the decree is
of dismissal of suit therefore, entirely in favour of the State and not
executable – Decree of dismissal of the first and second suit has
not attained finality and are under challenge by the plaintiffs and
the defendants-State are entitled to dispute findings on Issue No.1
– All the issues are open for consideration before the First Appellate
Court including the findings of fact on Issue No.1 – Defendants
have right to dispute such findings by filing cross-objections u/Or.
XLI,  r. 22, as amended in the year 1976 or even in the exercise of
the powers conferred on the Appellate Court u/Or. XLI, r. 33 –
Further, s.11 and Explanation I would be applicable in subsequent
proceedings between the same parties or between the parties under
whom they or any of them claimed under the same title – But the
findings in the first and second suit will not operate as res judicata
as such findings are subject matter of challenge in the appeals filed
by the plaintiffs in their respective suits – High Court failed to draw
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 143
143
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
the distinction between the decree and a finding on an issue – It is
the decree against which an appeal lies in terms of s.96 – Defendants-
State could not file appeal against a decree which was of dismissal
of suit simpliciter – Order of the High Court set aside.
Words & expressions – “Decree”, “Judgment” – Meaning of
– Discussed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.2(2), 2(9).
Suits – Consolidation of – Plea of the respondents drawing
distinction between an order of consolidation of suits and the order
where common judgment is rendered in different suits – Held: Not
tenable in law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded by the High Court are
patently erroneous. The present is a case where the decree is of
dismissal of suit therefore, entirely in favour of the State and not
executable. [Paras 12, 19] [156-H; 160-D]
1.2 The decree in Civil Suit No. 274 of 1983 or 276 of 1983
(First Suit and Second Suit) has not attained finality and the same
are still subject matter of appeal before the First Appellate Court
wherein, the findings recorded by the trial court can be set aside
while maintaining ultimate decree of dismissal of the suit. The
decree of dismissal of the first and second suit has not attained
finality which are under challenge by the plaintiffs and the
defendants-State are entitled to dispute findings on Issue No.1
even without filing cross objections or in terms of Order XLI
Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that the decree of
dismissal of suit on the grounds other than what weighed with
the learned trial court. All the issues are open for consideration
before the First Appellate Court. [Paras 26, 31] [166-F-G;
169-E-F]
1.3 Section 11 and Explanation I of the Code would be
applicable in subsequent proceedings between the same parties
or between the parties under whom they or any of them claimed
under the same title. But the findings in the first and second suit
will not operate as res judicata as such findings are subject matter
of challenge in the appeals filed by the plaintiffs in their respective
suits. All the three suits have been decided together and the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
three appeals pending against such judgmen

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