When in earlier suit rights of co-defendants in respect of suit land were neither in issue, nor ever adjudicated, held, principle of res judicata will not be applicable. Ratio Decidendi-

  1. The earlier suit (Suit No. 8/64) dealt with Maharani’s claim over the entire estate and did not adjudicate the specific claims of the appellant or Cantonment Board over the disputed 0.30 acres.
  2. Res judicata applies only when issues are directly and substantially the same, which was not the case here.
  3. Documentary evidence like the HukumnamaAmin Report, and rent receipts substantiated the appellant’s claims.

 [Har Narayan Tewari v. Ramgarh Cantonment Board, (2024) 8 SCC 114]


Case comment:

 

The Supreme Court adjudicated whether Title Suit No. 9/89 filed by the appellant was barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant claimed title and possession over 0.30 acres of land against the Cantonment Board, which was earlier disputed in Title Suit No. 8/64. The Court found that the principle of res judicata did not apply as there was no adjudication of the appellant’s claims in the earlier suit. It upheld the settlement of the disputed land in the appellant’s favor, supported by documentary evidence, and restored the trial court’s decision in favor of the appellant.

Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.