9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of constructive res judicata in execution cases. 2. Whether the sale in question is void or voidable. 3. Constitutionality of Section 49-M of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata in Execution Cases: The principal issue was the extent and scope of the applicability of the doctrine of constructive res judicata in execution cases. The decree-holders auction purchasers appealed and filed a civil revision against the order setting aside the sale of Kaimi Kasht lands. The court examined whether the judgment-debtors, who did not raise objections before the sale, were barred by constructive res judicata from raising the objection later. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata is based on the principle of finality and sanctity of judgment between the parties, and it applies not only to suits but also to execution proceedings. The court concluded that the judgment-debtors, having had the opportunity to raise objections before the sale but failing to do so, were barred by constructive res judicata from raising the objection later. 2. Whether the Sale in Question is Void or Voidable: The court considered whether the sale was void or voidable. The judgment-debtors argued that the sale was void as it contravened Section 49-M of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which prohibits the sale of the right of a raiyat who is a member of the backward classes. The court examined various precedents and concluded that the sale was void. It held that a sale in contravention of statutory prohibition is void and that the application for setting aside such a sale would be governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, not Article 166. The court emphasized that there is no estoppel against the statute, and the sale held in direct contravention of Section 49-M was without jurisdiction and void. 3. Constitutionality of Section 49-M of the Bihar Tenancy Act: The constitutionality of Section 49-M was challenged on the grounds that it violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. The court held that the provision was not unconstitutional. It reasoned that the protection given to members of backward classes under Section 49-M was in line with Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. The court concluded that the section did not violate the fundamental rights of the decree-holder and upheld its constitutionality. Conclusion: The court allowed the miscellaneous appeal and civil revision, setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge that had set aside the sale. The judgment emphasized the principles of res judicata, the void nature of the sale in contravention of statutory prohibition, and upheld the constitutionality of Section 49-M of the Bihar Tenancy Act.
|
