Skip to content


Bhagwant Singh and anr. Vs. Tej Kuar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR8All91
AppellantBhagwant Singh and anr.
RespondentTej Kuar and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 13 - res judicata. - - 1. i am clearly of opinion that this appeal fails. the plaintiffs-appellants before us are not the assignees of earn prasad, the plaintiff in the suit of 1868, who, it may be remarked, was unsuccessful in that litigation, but of chandan and others, who were arrayed in it as defendants along with bal kuar and on the same side......formerly obtained against her mother, bal kuar, in respect of the subject-matter of the present suit, such decree would only be binding in the hands of the person who obtained it, or of persons claiming under a title acquired from him. the plaintiffs-appellants before us are not the assignees of earn prasad, the plaintiff in the suit of 1868, who, it may be remarked, was unsuccessful in that litigation, but of chandan and others, who were arrayed in it as defendants along with bal kuar and on the same side. in that proceeding the question whether the family was joint or divided was not determined among the defendants inter se, but simply as against the plaintiff; and it could only be res judicata against him or parties claiming under the same title. my attention has been called to.....
Judgment:

Straight, J.

1. I am clearly of opinion that this appeal fails. The only plea pressed upon us by the learned Counsel is the first, which invites us to disagree with the view of the learned Judge upon the point of res judicata. Assuming, though without conceding it, that Musammafc Tej Kuar would be bound by a decree formerly obtained against her mother, Bal Kuar, in respect of the subject-matter of the present suit, such decree would only be binding in the hands of the person who obtained it, or of persons claiming under a title acquired from him. The plaintiffs-appellants before us are not the assignees of Earn Prasad, the plaintiff in the suit of 1868, who, it may be remarked, was unsuccessful in that litigation, but of Chandan and others, who were arrayed in it as defendants along with Bal Kuar and on the same side. In that proceeding the question whether the family was joint or divided was not determined among the defendants inter se, but simply as against the plaintiff; and it could only be res judicata against him or parties claiming under the same title. My attention has been called to Skadal Khan v. Amin-ullah Khan I.L.R. 4 Ali. 92. I can only say that if it was intended to lay down in that case that a decree in a suit makes all material questions raised therein res judicata as between the defendants to it, I must most respectfully but firmly express my dissent, which is only in accordance with the views expressed by me as far back as 1880, in the case of Narain Kuar v. Durjan Knar I.L.R. 2 All. 738.

2. This is the only point before us in second appeal, and such being my opinion with regard to it, the appeal must be dismissed, and is dismissed, with costs.

Tyrrell, J.

3. I concur in dismissing this appeal with costs, and will only add that in the case of Shadal Khan v. Amin-ullah Khan it was especially noted that the parties to the former suit were in appearance only, and not in fact, on the same side or in the same array, but were, in fact, on opposite sides and controversially maintaining opposite propositions on the issues under trial.


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