2003 (12) TMI 623 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether if at all the plea of res judicata was to be availed and applied then that should have been for the benefit of the plaintiff inasmuch as his predecessor-in-title had succeeded in proving his title to part of the property in the earlier suit?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title and recovery of possession.
2. Plea of res judicata.
3. Plea of adverse possession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession:
The property in question includes land and buildings located at Padavattamman Koil St., Kondithope, Madras. The plaintiff's chain of title is traced back to a purchase in 1921, with subsequent transfers culminating in the plaintiff's purchase in 1980. The defendant was in occupation of the property at the suit's commencement. Previous litigation in 1957 and 1965 involving the defendant and predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff had already occurred, with the latter resulting in a decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff's predecessor. The trial and first appellate courts decreed in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his title and right to possession.

2. Plea of Res Judicata:
The High Court erroneously allowed the defendant's appeal based on res judicata, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The Supreme Court clarified that res judicata, a rule of estoppel by judgment, must be properly pleaded and proved. It was not raised in the trial or first appellate court. The High Court's speculation on res judicata without proper pleadings and issues was incorrect. The earlier suit involved only a part of the property and could not constitute res judicata for the entire property. The Supreme Court emphasized that res judicata must be substantiated with pleadings, issues, and judgments from the previous case, which was not done here. The plea of res judicata was neither raised nor proved, and the issue of title was rightly determined by the lower courts based on the evidence.

3. Plea of Adverse Possession:
The defendant's plea of adverse possession was vague and unsubstantiated. He had previously claimed to be an adopted son and co-owner, not an adverse possessor. The defendant failed to plead and prove when he started asserting a hostile title. The lower courts correctly held that the plea of adverse possession lacked merit.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the lower courts' decrees. The plaintiff was declared the title owner of the suit property, excluding the 240 square feet area already decreed in the 1965 suit. The defendant was ordered to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff, who was also entitled to an inquiry into mesne profits. The costs were to be borne by the defendant throughout.