1962 (11) TMI 89 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appeal is barred by Section 11, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), or by the general principles of res judicata due to the finality of decisions in previous suits.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 11, CPC and Res Judicata:

The primary question referred to the larger bench was whether the appeal is barred by Section 11, CPC, or by the general principles of res judicata, given the finality of decisions in suits Nos. 77 and 91 of 1951. The court examined the essential conditions for the application of res judicata, which include:

- The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same as in the former suit.
- The former suit must have been between the same parties or their representatives.
- The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.
- The court which decided the former suit must have been competent to try the subsequent suit.
- The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided in the former suit.

The court noted that the two main issues in all the four suits were: (1) whether Sri Harnam Singh and adopted son Sri Ram Kishan died in a state of jointness with Ch. Bhagwan Sahai and his son Ch. Shiv Dan, and (2) whether the property in suit was the joint family property of Ch. Bhagwan Sahai and Ram Kishan.

The court found that the decision of the Civil Judge on these issues was against Ch. Bhagwan Sahai, and since the appeals against the decrees in suits Nos. 77 and 91 of 1950 were dismissed, the findings on these issues became final and binding. Therefore, the appeals in suits Nos. 365 and 366 of 1951 were held to be barred by res judicata.

2. Consistency with Previous Judgments:

The court referred to previous judgments to support its decision. In Zaharia v. Debia, it was held that when two suits involve common issues, the final decision in one suit operates as res judicata in subsequent suits or appeals. The court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Shankar Sahai v. Bhagwan Sahai, which emphasized the principle of conclusiveness of judgments and finality of litigation.

3. Distinction from Other Cases:

The court distinguished the present case from Ghansham Singh v. Bhola Singh, where it was held that an appeal is not barred by res judicata if the appellant did not object to the decree which did not prejudice him. The court noted that in the present case, the appeals against the decrees in suits Nos. 77 and 91 of 1950 were dismissed, making the judgments final and binding.

4. Examination of Narhari's Case:

The court examined the decision in Narhari v. Shankar, where it was held that when there has been one trial, one finding, and one decision, there need not be two appeals even though two decrees may have been drawn up. However, the court clarified that this principle applies only when all the issues in the appeals are the same. If there are separate issues, appeals must be filed against all decrees.

5. Explanation by Supreme Court:

The court referred to the Supreme Court's explanation in Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh, which clarified that the necessity of filing two appeals is dispensed with only when all issues in the appeals are the same. The Supreme Court also explained that the principle of res judicata applies even when decisions are given simultaneously if one of the decrees becomes final.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the appeals in suits Nos. 365 and 366 of 1951 are barred under Section 11, CPC, to the extent of the decision of the five common issues in the four connected suits. The matter was returned to the learned single Judge with this opinion.