2016 (5) TMI 1467 - SC - Indian Laws

Principles of res judicata - Principle of estoppel - inheritance of property by illegitimate sons - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Held that - Where the decision is on a pure question of law then a Court cannot be precluded from deciding such question of law differently. Such bar cannot be invoked either on principle of equity or estoppel. No equitable principle or estoppel can impede powers of the Court to determine an issue of law correctly in a subsequent suit which relates to another property founded upon a different cause of action though parties may be same. As explained earlier, in such a situation the principle of res judicata is, strictly speaking, not applicable at all. Principle of estoppel - Held that - It operates against the party and not the Court and hence nothing comes in the way of a competent court in such a situation to decide a pure question of law differently if it is so warranted. The issues of facts once finally determined will however, stare at the parties and bind them on account of earlier judgments or for any other good reason where equitable principles of estoppel are attracted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata and its applicability to issues of fact and law.
2. Entitlement of illegitimate sons to inherit property under Hindu law.
3. Distinction between res judicata and estoppel.

Detailed Analysis:

Res Judicata and its Applicability to Issues of Fact and Law:
The High Court addressed the issue of whether previous judgments in respect of another property could operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings involving different properties but the same parties. The High Court held that findings related to facts from previous judgments would operate as res judicata. However, findings on pure questions of law would not bind the parties in subsequent proceedings involving different properties. This distinction aligns with the principle that res judicata applies to issues of fact and mixed questions of law and fact but not to pure questions of law when the cause of action and subject matter differ.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy [AIR 1971 SC 2355], which stated that res judicata does not apply to pure questions of law in subsequent proceedings involving different causes of action. The High Court also noted that the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and estoppel apply to proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Entitlement of Illegitimate Sons to Inherit Property under Hindu Law:
The writ petitioners contended that as illegitimate sons of a Brahmin, they were entitled to inherit their father's property under Hindu law. They argued that the previous judgment, which held that illegitimate sons could not inherit, was incorrect in law and should not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. The petitioners relied on Section 171 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and judgments such as Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim [AIR 1966 All 84 (FB)] and Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra [(2011) 2 SCC 705] to support their claim.

The respondents argued that the principle of res judicata applies to both issues of fact and law, citing Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India [(2013) 5 SCC 252]. They also referred to case laws indicating that illegitimate children could inherit only the self-acquired property of their father under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not ancestral property.

Distinction Between Res Judicata and Estoppel:
The High Court differentiated between the binding nature of an erroneous judgment in respect of the same property and its binding nature in subsequent proceedings involving different properties. The Court held that while res judicata would apply to issues of fact, it would not apply to pure questions of law in subsequent proceedings involving different properties. This view was supported by judgments such as Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai [AIR 1991 SC 993], Union of India v. Pramod Gupta [(2005) 12 SCC 1], and Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad [AIR 2006 SC 2965].

The High Court concluded that the previous findings that Jagannath, Amar Nath, and Raj Nath were illegitimate sons of Kanhai would operate as res judicata. However, the legal finding that illegitimate children could not inherit would not bind the parties in subsequent proceedings involving different properties. The High Court directed the Consolidation Officer to conclude the trial of other issues and allow the parties to present their evidence.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, agreeing that previous judgments would operate as res judicata only for issues of fact and not for pure questions of law in subsequent proceedings involving different properties. The Court emphasized that while res judicata prevents re-litigation of the same issues of fact, it does not preclude courts from deciding pure questions of law differently in subsequent cases involving different properties and causes of action.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's distinction between res judicata and estoppel was upheld. The principle of res judicata applies to issues of fact and mixed questions of law and fact, but not to pure questions of law in subsequent proceedings involving different properties.