2005 (7) TMI 709 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Res judicata applicability.
2. Title and ownership of the suit property.
3. Validity and effect of the mortgage deed.
4. Settlement and relinquishment of property rights.
5. Non-joinder of necessary parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata Applicability:
The core issue is whether the judgment in the former suit (OS No. 843/74) operates as res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby barring the present suit. The trial court and the first appellate court rejected the plea of res judicata, while the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the previous judgment indeed constituted res judicata. The High Court emphasized that the right and title of Muthuswami to the suit house were substantially involved and decided in the former suit, which upheld the rights of the wife and children.

2. Title and Ownership of the Suit Property:
The property in question, house door No.206 in Harvaipatt township, was initially allotted to Muthuswami Naidu's mother by the Madurai Mills Cooperative Housing Society. After her death, Muthuswami inherited the property and later executed a mortgage deed on 3.12.1974. The former suit (OS No. 843/74) involved a dispute over this property, where the wife claimed ownership based on a settlement in a village panchayat in 1971. The trial court in the former suit found that the settlement was proven and that the wife and children were in possession of the house.

3. Validity and Effect of the Mortgage Deed:
The mortgage deed executed by Muthuswami on 3.12.1974 was central to the former suit. The trial court found the mortgage deed genuine but not binding, as Muthuswami did not testify to prove it. Consequently, the court denied the relief of permanent injunction sought by Muthuswami and his mortgagee, Chinnaswamy, against the wife. This decision was not appealed, thus attaining finality.

4. Settlement and Relinquishment of Property Rights:
The wife and children claimed ownership based on a settlement in a village panchayat in 1971, where Muthuswami allegedly relinquished his rights to the property. The trial court in the former suit accepted this settlement, noting that the wife had proven possession of the property. The High Court upheld this finding, indicating that the settlement and relinquishment were significant in deciding the ownership and possession issues.

5. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The trial court in the former suit also addressed the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically the children, who were considered necessary parties due to the settlement. The court held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of these parties, further supporting the wife's claim.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the former suit's findings on ownership and possession were directly and substantially involved, thus constituting res judicata. The appellant's subsequent suit, based on a sale deed from Muthuswami, was barred by constructive res judicata, as the issue of title could and should have been raised in the former suit. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were ordered.

Key Judgments Referenced:
- Sulachana Amma vs. Narain Nair [1994 (2) SCC 14]
- Ishar Singh vs. Sarwan Singh [AIR 1965 SC 948]
- Jumma Masjid vs. Kodimaniandra Deviah [AIR 1962 SC 847]

Final Decision:
The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld, confirming the application of res judicata and constructive res judicata to bar the subsequent suit filed by the appellant.