UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 1198 · Decided: 27-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2049 of 2013)
AUGUST 27, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 –
ss.2(d) and 8 – Government  Grants Act, 1895 – s.2 – Registration
Act, 1908 – s.17 –  Respondents-applicants’ case that their father
had purchased 2 acres 27 guntas of land from one ‘SA’ and he was
put in possession – Out of the total land purchased by the father of
applicants, some was taken over for the construction of roads – It
was also stated that their father sold the land measuring 4971.5 sq.
yard, however, the remaining 7128.5 sq. yards was retained by him
– Military Contract Committee started constructing sheds on the
land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) sold by their father – Purchaser
of the said land (measuring 4971.5 sq. yards) filed suit against
Union of India and respondents were also made party – First suit
was decreed declaring the purchasers as title holders – Respondents
as legal heirs filed an application u/s.8 of the Act alleging that the
land measuring 7128.5 sq. yards was grabbed by Union of India
and relied on the first suit decreed in favour of purchasers – Tribunal
held that findings in the first suit binds the Union of India and
applications were allowed – The High Court affirmed the decision
of the Tribunal – Questions required to be decided before the
Supreme Court: (i) whether the order passed in the first suit filed by
the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court operate as res judicata?;
(ii) whether the appellants have proved their title over the land in
question?; (iii) whether appellant is a land grabber within the section
2(d) of the Act – Held: Though the first suit is between the same
parties, but the subject matter is not the same – Since the issue in
the suit was restricted to 4971.5 sq. yard, the decree would be binding
qua that extent only – The issue cannot be said to be barred by
constructive res judicata as per Explanation IV as it applies to the
plaintiff in a later suit – The appellants have denied the claim of the
plaintiffs in the first suit to the extent that it was the subject matter
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1198
1198
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1199
of that suit alone – Therefore, the decree in the first suit will not
operate as res judicata in the subsequent matters – Since the land in
question was transferred from the State, document of title is not
required to be registered in terms of s.17 of the Registration Act,
1908 and/or in terms of Government Grants Act, 1895 – The letter
dated 19.03.1958 completes the transfer when the possession of
the land measuring 1500 acres and 24 guntas was handed over to
Union – Appellants claim possession of 1500 acres and 24 guntas,
although appellants have lost claim of 4971.5 sq. yards which is
falling as part of 2 acres and 20 guntas, but that would not lead to
losing of title of appellants over the entire land measuring 2 acres
and 20 guntas – Further, military land register, which is also a public
document (s.74 of the Evidence Act) shows possession of the
appellants over the land –  Appellants are owner of the land –
Therefore, appellants are not land grabbers.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The following questions are required to be
decided in the present appeals: (i) whether the order passed in
the first suit filed by the plaintiff as affirmed by the High Court
operate as res judicata?; (ii) whether the appellants have proved
their title over the land in question?; (iii) whether appellant is a
land grabber within the section 2(d) of the Act? [Para 24][1226-
C-D]
2. The The applicants have claimed possession from the
appellants primarily on the ground that in the suit filed by the
plaintiffs on 14.4.1965, the basis of the suit was purchase of land
by the plaintiffs from the father of the applicants. Since the
plaintiffs have been found to be the owners on the basis of
purchase of land from the father of the applicants, therefore, the
issue of title decided in the said suit would operate as res judicata.
Therefore, the appellants herein are land grabbers having  no
title over the land in question. It may be reiterated that the
plaintiffs had purchased land measuring 4971.5 sq. yards from
the father of the applicants whereas the remaining land measuring
7128.5 sq. yards was retained by the applicants. Therefore, the
decree in the first suit was only in respect o

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