2005 (4) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Declaration of Ownership - Suits filed by the appellant as presumptive reversioner of the widow - Whether the finding of the High Court in the impugned judgment that the earlier decree obtained by the appellant being declaratory in nature would not operate as res judicata in favour of the appellant and would not enable her to obtain possession through the court of law by filing a suit for possession, is correct in law or not ? - HELD THAT - It is to be noticed that in the present case when the first declaratory decree was obtained, the law as it stood then right of Uttamdassi remained a limited right, in the suit property hence, a declaratory decree was given in favour of the plaintiffs in that suit, but by the time the second declaratory decree was obtained by the appellant herein, this Court by the judgment in V. Thulasamma's case 1977 (3) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT had declared the law u/s 14 of the Hindu Succession Act holding that the estate of persons similarly situated as Uttamdassi got enlarged and a beneficiary under a Will with limited rights became the absolute owner of the same. Since the judgment of this Court in Tulasamma's case was the law on that date and is the law currently, the second declaratory decree was contrary to the said declaration of law made by this Court. Therefore, that declaration cannot be of any use to the appellant. In the instant case, in our opinion, the High Court rightly held that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant being contrary to the judgment in Tulasamma's case (supra) would not be of any assistance to the appellant to obtain the possession of the suit property. The Principle of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure. When the decision relates to the jurisdiction of a court to try an earlier proceedings, the principle of res judicata would not come into play. Thus, it is clear that if the earlier judgment which is sought to be made the basis of res judicata is delivered by a court without jurisdiction or is contrary to the existing law at the time the issue comes up for reconsideration such earlier judgment cannot be held to be res judicata in the subsequent case unless, of course, protected by any special enactment. Unfortunately for the appellant the declaration obtained by her based on which she was seeking possession in the present suit being contrary to law, the courts below correctly held that the appellant could not seek possession on the basis of such an illegal declaration. Thus, the law is clear on this point i.e. if a suit is based on an earlier decree and such decree is contrary to the law prevailing at the time of its consideration as to its legality or is a decree granted by a court which has no jurisdiction to grant such decree, principles of res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC will not be attracted and it is open to the defendant in such suits to establish that the decree relied upon by the plaintiff is not a good law or court granting such decree did not have the jurisdiction to grant such decree. In the instant case, as noticed, the present suit is filed for possession of the suit properties on the basis of a declaratory decree obtained earlier which is found to be not a lawful decree as per the law prevailing at present. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with. Thus, examined from any angle, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contradictory views in previous judgments.
2. Interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. Validity of declaratory decrees and their effect on reversionary rights.
4. Application of the principle of res judicata.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Contradictory views in previous judgments:
The Supreme Court noted contradictory views in three different judgments: Teg Singh vs. Charan Singh, Kesar Singh vs. Sadhu, and Balwant Singh vs. Daulat Singh. The Division Bench referred the matter to a larger bench due to these inconsistencies.

2. Interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
The core issue revolved around whether the limited ownership rights of Uttamdassi under the Will were converted to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court, relying on V. Tulasamma vs. V. Sesha Reddy, held that Uttamdassi became the absolute owner of the property, allowing her to alienate it.

3. Validity of declaratory decrees and their effect on reversionary rights:
The appellant, granddaughter of Hirday Ram, obtained two declaratory decrees asserting her reversionary rights. However, the High Court ruled that these decrees did not operate as res judicata since they were contrary to the interpretation of Section 14 by the Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma's case. The declaratory decrees were deemed erroneous as they did not reflect the current law.

4. Application of the principle of res judicata:
The appellant argued that the finality of the declaratory decrees should entitle her to possession. However, the Supreme Court held that res judicata does not apply when the previous judgment is contrary to existing law. Citing Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, the Court emphasized that a change in law or a jurisdictional error nullifies the application of res judicata. The declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant were found to be contrary to the law established in V. Tulasamma's case and thus could not be used to claim possession.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant were not valid in light of the current interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court clarified that res judicata does not protect judgments that are contrary to existing law or rendered by a court without jurisdiction. The appellant's claim for possession based on these decrees was therefore invalid.