Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21) We have heard learned counsel Shri Vinay Navare for the appellants and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted, that, the civil court in a properly constituted suit has decided that Vithu is not the adopted son of deceased Watandar and that finding has become final in view of the order passed by the High Court in the regular second appeal filed by Vithu and, therefore, the revenue authorities could not have examined and decided the issue of adoption once over again. It is further submitted that the High Court was not justified in relying on the order passed by the Mamlatdar in the year 1931, which was discarded both by the trial and the first appellate court, on the ground that Vithu had failed to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim that he is the adopted son of the deceased Watandar. It is further contended that the Sub- Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction under the Act, to review and modify the regrant order passed by the Deputy District Collector under Section 5(1) of Watan Abolition Act, 1958. It is further submitted that the issue regarding adoption decided by the civil court and confirmed by the High Court in the regular second appeal between the same parties operates as res-judicata and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in re-examining the same issue and taking a different view in the matter. It is also submitted that the High Court erroneously has come to the conclusion that the subject matter of 1953 suit and 1979 was different and, therefore, Principles of re- judicata are not attracted.

22) Per contra, learned senior counsel Shri Shekhar Naphade for the respondents would submit, that, Vithu without proving the issue of adoption, can still be Watandar in view of the specific provision under the provisions of The Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1958. The learned counsel would further contend that, the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1958 and the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, constitute one code and therefore those Acts must be read together and not in isolation. The learned senior counsel would also submit that the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 22.10.1931, on the application filed by Vithu cannot be faulted, even assuming there was some defects in the procedure adopted at the time of adoption of Vithu by his adopted parents. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in the case of L. Devi Prasad (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Triveni Devi and Others (AIR 1970 SC 1286). The learned senior counsel would further contend, that, the order passed in the year 1931, is not annulled or modified by any forum and, therefore, the full effect must be given to that order. It is further contended that the order passed by the authorities under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 sometime in the year 1941,  recognizes the order passed in the year 1931 and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the existence of 1931 order passed by Mamaltadar. It is further submitted that all the authorities have decided against the respondent on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in the original suit filed by the appellants in the year 1953, without realising the doctrine of principle of res judicata is not attracted both on the procedural stand point as well as substantive law point as the issue of recognition of Watandar was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities under Watan Abolition Act, 1958, and other cognate Acts. Alternatively, it is contended that since civil court had no jurisdiction to decide Watandari rights, any decision rendered by the civil court on that issue would not operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings. While summing up his submissions, the learned senior counsel would contend, that, since the reasoning adopted by the High Court is a possible view, the same need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

42)It is true that if an earlier judgment has to operate as res-judicata in the subsequent proceedings, then all the necessary facts including pleadings of the earlier litigation must be placed on record in the subsequent proceedings. In the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2353 of 1979, the trial Judge in extenso has referred to the pleadings of the parties in the earlier suit with reference to the copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.104 of 1953 which was produced by the appellants along with the other documents and it is only thereafter has observed that the issue regarding adoption of Vithu was one of the issues framed in the 1953 suit and the court after referring to the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence adduced has specifically answered the issue by holding that Vithu has failed to prove that he is adopted son of the deceased Watandar. Therefore, we cannot accept the contention of learned senior counsel Sri Shekhar Naphade. In fact, the High Court, while deciding on this issue had observed that the pleadings of the parties in O.S. No.104 of  1953 were not available before the civil court in the subsequent suit and, therefore, there is non-compliance of mandatory and basic requirements, as laid down by this Court in the case of Syed Mohd. In our view, this reasoning of the High Court is fallacious and we cannot agree. In our view, each one of the conditions necessary to satisfy the test as to the applicability of Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code is satisfied.