Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The bar of res-judicata is pleaded as follows Certain other plots in Mouza Asansol Municipality were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and there was a dispute regarding the persons entitled to compensation amount. Kashi Nath Dawn made a-claim for payment of the full compensation as the owner of those plots. That claim was resisted by Subasini Dasi and her sons and they claimed in turn to be entitled to the compensation amount. But the Land Acquisition Court upheld the claim of Kashi Nath Dawn and that decree has become final. Under Ex. 7 the title of Kashi Nath Dawn in the properties of Mouza Asansol Municipality having been recognised, it was no longer open to the respondents herein to urge that Kashi Nath Dawn had no title to plot No. 9202, which is situated in Mouza Asansol Municipality. The High Court had rejected this plea on the ground that the claims of Subasini Dasi in the prior land acquisition proceedings having been dismissed for default, would not prevent her from claiming title to other plots pertaining to the same interest inasmuch as the question of ownership of the interest as a whole was 'not heard and decided. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants attacks this reasoning of the High Court as fallacious. He urged that Subasini Dasi and her sons having made a claim before the Land Acquisition Court for payment of compensation on the basis of their title, which was rejected are not entitled to, put forward any further claim to this item. This plea of res-judicata raised by Mr. Mukherjee has to be approached from two points of view : (i) as a bar against Bhakta bala Dasi and (ii) as a bar against Subasini Dasi. We have already referred to the case set up by Bhaktabala Dasi regarding the interest of herself and her sister Subasini Dasi in plot No. 9202. This case has been accepted by both the courts. From the nature of the claim, it is clear that Bhaktab-ala Dasi was not claiming any title through Subasini Dasi, on the other hand she was claiming half share in her own right as the daughter of Ramanugraha Roy and according to her, her sister Subasini Dasi was also entitled to an equal share. Bhaktabala Dasi, it is admit- ted, was not a party to the decree Ex. 7. If that is so, there is no question of any bar of res-judicata so far as half share of Bhaktabala Dasi is concerned. Then the question is whether the claim of Subasini Dasi to half share in this item is barred by Ex. 7. If the appellants' contention in this regard is accepted they will be entitled to at least claim the half share of Subasini Dasi in plot No. 9202. Now it is necessary to refer to the nature of the proceedings covered by Ex. 7. Nine plots of land referred to therein and situate in Monza Asansol Municipality appear to have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the expansion of a road level crossing. There appear to have been disputes amongst various parties with regard to right to receive compensa-

We will now advert to the decisions cited by Mr. Mukherjee. In Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others v. Banamali Sen and others(1) this Court had to consider the question whether a previous decision on title in land acquisition proceedings operated as resjudicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties when the (1) [1953] .CR. 154.

question of title was again raised. The facts in that case were briefly as follows : Certain properties were acquired in land acquisition proceedings and there was a triangular contest about the right to receive compensation between A and B, the rival claimants, and C, a mortgagee from B. All the parties required the question of apportionment to be referred to the Land Acquisition Court. The court decided the question of title in favour of B after contest. This decision was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. That means that the title of B and his mortgagee C to receive compensation amount was upheld by the Land Acquisition Court and the High Court. A took the matter to the Privy Council, which reversed the decision of the High Court and the Land Acquisition Court and the title of B and C were negatived. In a subsequent suit between the same parties the question of title was again raised and this Court held that the decision of the Privy Council operated as res-judicata in respect of the subsequent proceedings notwithstanding the fact that B and his mortgagee C did not appear before the Privy Council and their claim was rejected in default. Considerable reliance has been placed by Mr. Mukherjee on this decision in support of his contention that Ex. 7 though a decision given against Subasini Dasi and her sons ill default of their appearance operates res-judicata. In our opinion, the decision of this Court referred to above does not assist the appellants. It is now well established that where a dispute as to title to receive compensation amount has been referred to a court, a decree thereon not appealed from renders the question of title res- judicata in a suit between the same parties to the dispute. A party in such circumstances cannot be heard to say that the value of the subject matter on which the former decision was pronounced was comparatively so trifling that it was not worth their while to appeal from it. It is true that the test of resjudicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases but the previous decision must be one on a title in respect of which a dispute has been raised and which dispute was heard and finally decided by the court.

For an earlier decision to operate as res-judicata it has been held by this Court in Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and others v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao and others(1) that the same must have been on a matter which was 'heard and finally decided'.

In Sheodan Singh v. Smt. Daryao Kunwar(2) the question whether a decision given by the High Court dismissing certain appeal on the ground of limitation or on the ground that the party had not taken steps to prosecute the appeal operates as resjudicata, was considered by this Court. In that case A had instituted against B two suits asserting, title to a certain property. B contested those claims and also instituted two other suits to establish his title to the same property as against A. A's suits were decreed and B's suits were dismissed. B filed four appeals, two appeals against the decision given in A's suits and two appeals against the dismissal of his two suits. It is seen that all the appeals were taken on the file of the High Court but the two appeals filed by B against the decision in the suits instituted by him were dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that one was filed beyond the period of limitation and the other for non-prosecution. At the final hearing the High Court took the view that the dismissal of B's two appeals, referred to above, operated as resjudicata in the two appeals filed by B against the decision in A's suits on the question of title to the property. It was urged before this Court on behalf of B that the dismissal of his appeals on the grounds of limitation and non-prosecution by the High Court does not operate as res-judicata as the High Court cannot be considered to have 'heard and finally decided' the question of tit,--. This contention was not accepted. This Court referred to instances where a former suit was dismissed by a trial court for want of jurisdiction or for default of plaintiff's appearance etc. and pointed out that in respect of such class of cases, the decision not being on merits, would not be res-judicata in a subsequent suit. It was further pointed out that none of those considerations apply to a case where a decision is given on the merits by the trial court and the matter is taken in appeal and the appeal is dismissed on some (1) [1964] 2.S.C.R.310.

(2) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 300.

preliminary ground, like limitation or default in printing. It was held that such dismissal 'by an appellate court has the effect of confirming the decision of the trial court on merits, and that it amounts to the appeal being heard and finally decided on the merits whatever may be the ground. for dismissal of the appeal".

It will be seen from the above reasoning that in order to operate as res-judicata, the previous decision must have been given after the matter was heard and finally decided on merits. This Court has further held' that the High Court, in that case, when it dismissed the two appeals in' question, though on a preliminary ground of limitation or default in printing must be considered to have heard and finally decided on merits. Far from supporting Mr. Mukherjee's contention that a decision given in default of appearance under any circumstance, operates as res-judicata, the above decision lays down clearly that a previous decision to operate as res-judicata must be one in a case heard and finally decided on merits.