2007 (10) TMI 699 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Lawful possession of the suit schedule properties.
2. Application of the principle of res judicata.
3. Suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.

Summary:

1. Lawful Possession of the Suit Schedule Properties:
The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit schedule properties based on a registered sale deed dated 16-3-1967 and subsequent orders from the Tahsildar and the High Court in W.P. No. 2700 of 1981. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower Appellate Court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove lawful possession. The lower Appellate Court's decision was based on documentary evidence, including R.T.C. extracts (Exs. D. 2, D. 3, D. 13, and D. 14), which indicated that defendant 6 was in possession. The High Court upheld the lower Appellate Court's finding, stating it was a possible view based on the evidence presented.

2. Application of the Principle of Res Judicata:
The lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata due to a previous suit (O.S. No. 398 of 1967) for the same relief of permanent injunction against defendant 6, which had been dismissed. The High Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that the principle of res judicata applied as the plaintiff failed to establish a new basis for possession after the earlier suit's dismissal.

3. Suppression of Material Facts by the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff did not disclose the earlier suit (O.S. No. 398 of 1967) in his pleadings, which the lower Appellate Court considered a suppression of material facts. The High Court concurred, citing the principle that a party must approach the court with clean hands. The suppression of the earlier suit was deemed significant enough to warrant dismissal of the current suit, irrespective of whether the suppression occurred at an interlocutory or final stage.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower Appellate Court's judgment and decree, and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the grounds of failure to prove lawful possession, application of res judicata, and suppression of material facts. No costs were awarded.