Skip to content


Bodlu Bhonja and ors. Vs. Mohan Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1917)ILR39All717; 42Ind.Cas.862
AppellantBodlu Bhonja and ors.
RespondentMohan Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (1908), section 11 - res judicata--act no. i of 1877 (specific relief act), section 9--suit for possession in munsif's court--subsequent suit for damages in court of small causes. - piggott, j.1. this is an application by certain plaintiffs whose suit for damages has been dismissed by a court of small causes. the plaintiffs alleged that they were dispossessed from certain land by the defendants on a certain date and claimed damages therefor. the pleadings raised three distinct issues, (1) whether the plaintiffs had been dispossessed by the defendants? (2) how long this dispossession had lasted? (3) what damages the plaintiffs had thereby suffered? the court framed a composite issue and recorded a single finding, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs was false and that the issue is decided against the plaintiffs. in my opinion the case has not been properly tried; and as there is a question of principle involved, the court below may be required to.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This is an application by certain plaintiffs whose suit for damages has been dismissed by a Court of Small Causes. The plaintiffs alleged that they were dispossessed from certain land by the defendants on a certain date and claimed damages therefor. The pleadings raised three distinct issues, (1) whether the plaintiffs had been dispossessed by the defendants? (2) how long this dispossession had lasted? (3) what damages the plaintiffs had thereby suffered? The court framed a composite issue and recorded a single finding, to the effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs was false and that the issue is decided against the plaintiffs. In my opinion the case has not been properly tried; and as there is a question of principle involved, the court below may be required to try the case again upon proper lines. There had been a previous suit between the parties on the regular side in which the plaintiffs recovered possession of this land from the defendants under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, upon a clear finding that they had been dispossessed therefrom by the defendants. This finding was res judicata between the parties in the present suit and should have been recognized as such, vide Ghulappa bin Balappa v. Raghavendra Swamirao (1904) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 338 Raja Simhadri Appa Row v. Ramachandrudu (1902) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 63. In this connection I may note that the latter of these two decisions was not overruled by a Full Bench of the same Court in I.L.R. 29 Mad. 195, on the specific point on which the decision proceeds. I think there can be no doubt that the Munsif who decided the suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act was competent to try the present suit for damages within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. What the court below had to do in the present case was to treat the finding in the previous suit as decisive in favour of the plaintiffs so far as it went. If it had done this, and had then found against the plaintiffs on the other questions involved, I should not have felt inclined to interfere. As it is, I accept this application, set aside the decree of the court below, and order the record to be returned to that court with directions to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending suits and dispose of it with due regard to the above observations. Costs of this application will abide the result.


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