Skip to content


GoshaIn Purshotama Nand Gir Vs. Musammat Lakhpatti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.67
AppellantGoshaIn Purshotama Nand Gir
RespondentMusammat Lakhpatti
Excerpt:
.....65. the question of the plaintiff's title having been determined in the former suit is, therefore, clearly res judicata and cannot be reopened in the present suit......ganpat brought a suit against the defendant-appellant for possession of the house and to that suit musammat lakhpati was a party as defendant. the title of the plaintiff to that suit and necessarily the title of musammat lakhpati his vendor were disputed. the court framed an issue to the effect whether the house belonged to damodar pathak and whether he had made a gift of it to musammat lakhpati. that issue was found in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that damodar was the proprietor of the house and that he made a gift of it in favour of musammat lakhpati by an instrument dated the 5th february 1899 and put her in possession.2. the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by musammat lakhpati for mesne profits for the period of her dispossession anterior to the.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. The only question in this appeal is whether a judgment in a previous suit in which the parties to the present suit were co-defendants operates as res judicata. The plaintiff, Musammat Lakhpati, sold a house to one Ganpat. She claimed to have acquired it under a gift from one Damodar Pathak. Ganpat brought a suit against the defendant-appellant for possession of the house and to that suit Musammat Lakhpati was a party as defendant. The title of the plaintiff to that suit and necessarily the title of Musammat Lakhpati his vendor were disputed. The Court framed an issue to the effect whether the house belonged to Damodar Pathak and whether he had made a gift of it to Musammat Lakhpati. That issue was found in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that Damodar was the proprietor of the house and that he made a gift of it in favour of Musammat Lakhpati by an instrument dated the 5th February 1899 and put her in possession.

2. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by Musammat Lakhpati for mesne profits for the period of her dispossession anterior to the date of the transfer by her to Ganpat. In this suit her title was denied by the defendant. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has held that by reason of the decision in the previous case the question of her title is res judicata and cannot be re-opened. I am of opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge is correct. It is true that the present plaintiff Musammat Lakhpati and the present defendant-appellant were co-defendants in the previous suit, but it was necessary for the determination of that suit and for granting relief to the plaintiff to that suit to determine as between Musammat Lakhpati and the principal defendant, namely, the present appellant, whether Lakhpati had a valid title. Where it is necessary to adjudicate between co-defendants the question of the title of one of the defendants in order to give relief to the plaintiff, the adjudication would be res judicata between the defendants as well as between the plaintiff and the defendant. This was so held in Chajju v. Umrao Singh 22 A. 386 and in Ahmed All v. Najabat Khan 18 A. 65. The question of the plaintiff's title having been determined in the former suit is, therefore, clearly res judicata and cannot be reopened in the present suit. This was the only point argued in the appeal and as there is no force in the contention, I dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //