1969 (3) TMI 91 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata in view of a previous decision in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership of certain properties between the father of the appellants and the father of the respondents. The appellants claimed possession based on a gift, while the respondents asserted that the properties were gifted to them. A previous Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943 had decided in favor of the appellants, but subsequent actions by the respondents led to a new suit for partition by one of the sons of the respondent. The key issue was whether the decision in the earlier suit operated as res judicata in the present case.

In the previous suit, the controversy was about whether the properties were gifted to the father of the appellants or the father of the respondents. The High Court in the present case had taken a view contrary to the trial court's decision that the suit was not barred by res judicata. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the properties in dispute were the same in both suits. It was noted that the father of the respondents could have represented his family in the earlier suit, and it was unnecessary for him to specify whether he was acting as an individual or as the family's Karta. The Court highlighted that a decree against the manager could operate as res judicata against coparceners who were not parties to the suit, even if the manager's capacity was not expressly stated.

The Court cited various precedents to support its conclusion that the decision in the previous suit should indeed operate as res judicata in the present case. It was established that when the manager represents the family and the property in question is family property, the suit is considered to be brought against or by the manager on behalf of the family. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and reinstating the trial court's decision. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in all courts.