Skip to content


Nikka Singh Vs. Babu Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 904 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1975P& H234
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 11 and 100
AppellantNikka Singh
RespondentBabu Singh and anr.
Appellant Advocate Puran Chand, Adv.
Respondent Advocate D.C. Ahluwalia, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredRaj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen
Excerpt:
.....shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. .....and stated that he never sold this land to him (plaintiff). he had been in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff. the plaintiff did not pay him the share of the profits arising out of the land and he instituted a suit for recovery thereof in the revenue court. one of the issises in that case was regarding the ownership of the land in dispute. that issue was decided in favour of the answering defendant. that judgment of the revenue court operates as res judicaita between the parties. (the trial court held that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit land by purchase from nikka singh, defendant and that the judgment of the revenue court does not operate as res judicata between the parties. consequently, it decreed suit of the plaintiff. defendant no. 1 went up.....
Judgment:

R.N. Mittal, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated February 2, 1963, by the defendants.

2. briefly, the facts of the case are that Nikka Singh defendant sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff on September 12, 1953 for a sum of Rs. 2.500/- and received Rupees 1,500/- in cash. It was recorded in a resolution which was signed by the defendant. The plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property after the sale. He has prayed that a decree for declaration that the defendant had sold his one-half share in the said land, be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The suit has been contested by Nikka Singh, defendant No. 1, He denied the allegations of the plaintiff and stated that he never sold this land to him (plaintiff). He had been in joint possession of the suit land along with the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not pay him the share of the profits arising out of the land and he instituted a suit for recovery thereof in the Revenue Court. One of the issises in that case was regarding the ownership of the land in dispute. That issue was decided in favour of the answering defendant. That judgment of the Revenue Court operates as res judicaita between the parties. (The trial Court held that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit land by purchase from Nikka Singh, defendant and that the judgment of the Revenue Court does not operate as res judicata between the parties. Consequently, it decreed suit of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. He has come up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, to this Court.

3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no sale was effected by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 1. He further submits that the resolution Exhibit P-5 dated September 12, 1953 during the consolidation proceedings on the basis of which respondent No. 1 claimed to have become owner of the land in dispute, is not admissible into evidence for want of registration.

4. Both the Courts have given the concurrent finding of fact after taking into consideration all the documents on the record and the evidence that the transaction had already completed and the resolution during the consolidation proceedings was the memorandum of the completed transaction. Such memorandum of a transaction is not required to be registered under the Registration Act. It is admitted by the counsel for the parties that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable in Pepsu at the time of alleged transaction. In this situation it was not necessary that a registered sale deed should have been executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No. 1. The property in dispute could be sold orally in his favour by the appellant.

5. I have also been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel for the parties. After examining the evidence I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below. Even otherwise, the finding of the first appellate Court being the finding of fact, is binding upon this Court. The said finding is not vitiated. In the circumstances I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and reject the same.

6. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that a suit was instituted by the appellant against respondent No. 1 for recovery of rent in a Revenue Court which was regarding the land in dispute. In that suit a plea was taken by respondent No. 1 that he was the owner of the land in dispute and an issue had been framed to that effect. The Revenue Court came to a conclusion that respondent No. 1 had not become owner of the land in dispute and it, therefore, decreed the suit of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the finding has been given by a court of exclusive jurisdiction and it operates as res judicata in the present case. He, therefore, urges that the present suit of respondent No. 1 is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

7. I have examined the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant but do not find any substance in it. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the present case. The case, therefore, will be governed by general principles of res judicata. The principle of law is that if a Revenue Court while deciding cases falling within its jurisdiction, has to decide collateral questions, which are not within its exclusive jurisdiction, the decision on the colfateral questions cannot operate as res judicata, when such a question comes up before a Civil Court in a subsequent litigation. The cases which can be tried by the Revenue Courts have been given in Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. That section does not confer on the Revenue Court a jurisdiction to decide the questions of title. The Revenue Court can, however, decide the question of title collaterally while deciding a suit falling within its jurisdiction. Applying the above principle to the present case, it is clear that the finding of the Revenue Court regarding question of title can not operate as res judicata in a suit started subsequently in the Civil Court between the parties involving question of title.

8. In this view I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mylavarapu Chitti Sanyasi prasad Rao v. Runku Lakshmayya, AIR 1967 Andh Pra 143. In that case the Tenancy Court had been clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the tenants on the ground that the cultivating tenant was a defaulter. In order to determine the question whether eviction could be directed or not, it was necessary to find out whether the tenant was a defaulter. The finding on such a question did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tenancy Court. It was held that in a subsequent civil suit to recover arrears of rent from the cultivating tenant, the findings of the Tenancy Court did not operate as res judicata. The relevant observations of the learned Court are as follows:--

'Under the general principles a judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction can operate as res judicata only on a matter which that court could exclusively decide. It is not necessary that the Court of exclusive jurisdiction should be competent to hear subsequently filed suit. If for the purpose of deciding a question which relates to the exclusive jurisdiction, the special Tribunal finds it necessary to decide another matter, that matter does not become a matter of exclusive jurisdiction and any decision on any such matter neither binds the parties, nor can it operate as res judicata.'

I am in respectful agreement with the observations of the learned Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the above case and the observations of learned Judges are applicable to it. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen, AIR 1953 SC 33. In that case it was held that on general principles, the findings of Land Acquisition Courts, Administration Courts, Land Revenue Courts etc., operate as res judicata. There is no dispute about the proposition. In the case before the Supreme Court the finding of a Land Acquisition Court was held to be res judicata in a subsequent suit. The Supreme Court has not laid down that all findings of Courts of exclusive jurisdiction will operate as res judicata in the subsequent civil suit. As I have observed above, only those findings of the Courts of exclusive jurisdiction can operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suits which such Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to decide. The case before the Supreme Court is distinguishable on the facts and the observations in Raj Lakshmi Dasi's case AIR 1953 SC 33 (supra) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. For the reasons recorded above, I dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.


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