Y. B. PATIL AND ORS. versus Y. L. PATIL

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 23-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
320 
Y. B. PATIL AND ORS. 
v. 
Y. L. PATIL 
August 23, 1976 
(H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 226, whether concurrent findings of facts by the 
lf.evenue Authorities, can be reopened in writ petition. 
Civil Procedure Code s. 11 Res Judicata, Whether invocable in subsequent 
stage of same proceeding. 
\ 
The respondent sought possession of some land, on the ground that tho 
appellants who were strangers, had occupied it. The Assistant Commissi~ 
accepted their claim and directed that the possession of the disputed land I.it: 
restored to them. 
The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Com-
missioner, but their revision petition was accepted by the 
Mysore Revenue 
Appellate Tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respon-
dents, directing the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in revision. 
The matter was remanded and the Tribunal then upheld the findings of the 
Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, and dismissed the revision petition. The 
appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 
( 1) The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Ailliitant Commisiionec, 
the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be act aside in the writ 
petition. (322 B-C] 
(2) Principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate iUblle· 
quent proceedings, they can also get attracted in subsequent stage of the samo 
proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes finlll, 
it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceedings. [321 H, 322 Al 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1968. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-9-67 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2190/67. 
S. V. Gupte, S. S. Javali and B. Dutta, for the Appellant. 
A. K. Verma (Mrs.) for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji 
and 
Co., 
for 
Respondents 1 and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
~ANNA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judg-
ment of the Mysore High Court whereby the High Court dismissed 
petition under articles 226 and 227 filed by the appellants to challenge 
the order dated September 12, 1967 of the Mysore Revenue Appel-
late Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). 
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the first rCipon-
dent applied on April 22, 1959 to the Assistant Commissioner Bagal-
kot for the restoration of the Patilki/watan/lands 11urvey Noll. 32/2, 
54/2, and 4912 under &ections 11, llA and 
12 of the Bombay 
Hereditary Ot'ficers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). PO!Siei-
sion of thoso lands was sought on the ground that the appellants, who 
were stran~ers, had taken possession of the lands. 
The Ai;iistant 
.~· 
/ 
Y. B. PATIL v. Y. L. PATIL (Khanna, J.) 
321 
Commissioner, as per order dated August 11, 
1960, accepted that 
application and directed that the possession of the lan?s be reiotored 
to the reipondents. Appeal filed by the appellants agamst that order 
wu diiilnissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated J anu-
•y 24, 1961. The appellants then went up in revision before the 
Tribunal. The Tribunal as per order dated May 5, 1962 accepted the 
reviiion petition and held that the appellants were not strangers to ~he. 
"'3.tan. In arriving as this conclusion, the Tribunal held disagreemg 
with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the 
watan had been acquired by Basangouda I. The respondents challen~­
ed the order of the Tribunal by means of a wrif petition. The wnt 
petition filed by the respondents was accepted by the Mysore High 
Court as per judgment dated December 18•1964, and it was held that 
it lfl.i not open to the Tribunal to reopen and set aside findings of fact 
in a revision petition. The case was accordingly remitted to the 
Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations of the High 
Court. 
When the matter came up before the Tribunal after the above 
judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal as per order dated Septem-
ber 12, 1967 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and 
the Deputy Commissioner that the 
watan had 
been 
acquired by 
BMangouda II and not by Basangouda I. It may be stated that 
Basangouda I was the grandfather of Basangouda 11 and that unless 
it be shown that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda I, the 
appellant would have to 

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