9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1518 - SC - Indian LawsPrinciples of Res-Judicata - Decree of specific performance of agreement to sell - Fraud and collusion - it is also claimed that appellant was not a party to the earlier suit - HELD THAT - The cause of action for filing the suit is different. The grounds urged in the suit, as we find, are also quite different. Even if the plaint is read keeping in mind the cleverness and deftness in drafting, yet it is not prima facie discernible from the plaint that it lacks any cause of action or is barred by any law. On a perusal of the plaint alone it cannot be said that the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata. The allegations in the plaint are absolutely different. There is an asseveration of fraud and collusion. There is an assertion that in the earlier suit a decree came to be passed because of fraud and collusion. In such a fact situation, the High Court has fallen into error by expressing the view that the plea of resjudicata was obvious from the plaint. In fact, a finding has been recorded by the High Court accepting the plea taken in the written statement. Thus, in the obtaining factual matrix there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same within a period of six months hence - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell 2. Ownership and Validity of Gift Deeds 3. Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 4. Principle of Res Judicata 5. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion Detailed Analysis: 1. Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: The contesting respondents filed a Civil Suit No. 806 of 1993 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 20 kanals. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (SD), Kurukshetra on 19.9.1998, and no appeal was filed against this judgment. The decree was sought to be executed by the respondents. 2. Ownership and Validity of Gift Deeds: During the execution of the decree, the petitioner society claimed ownership of the suit land through gift deeds dated 5.3.1997 and 6.3.1997. The objections filed by the society were rejected on 4.11.2000. Subsequently, the society's application to set aside the judgment and decree was also dismissed on 19.4.2001, and the appeal against this dismissal was rejected on 1.10.2004. 3. Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: The society filed a suit for declaration (No. 333/03 of 2001) challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998, the subsequent sale deed dated 30.1.2001, and mutation No. 2450 as illegal, null, and void. The trial court allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, deeming the suit barred by law. However, the Additional District Judge restored the suit, which was later set aside by the High Court, reinstating the trial court's order. 4. Principle of Res Judicata: The High Court observed that the issues raised by the society had already been adjudicated by the executing court and the appellate court, and thus, the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The High Court emphasized that once a matter is decided by a competent authority, it cannot be reopened in subsequent litigation to prevent harassment and ensure finality in litigation. 5. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion: The society contended that the earlier judgment was vitiated by fraud and collusion and that it was not a party to the original suit. The Supreme Court noted that the allegations of fraud and collusion necessitated a trial. The Court emphasized that the principle of res judicata should not be applied summarily without a thorough examination of the issues framed in the plaint and the written statement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the appellate Judge's decision to proceed with the trial. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive trial to address the allegations of fraud and collusion. The Court highlighted that the principle of res judicata should not preclude a trial where different causes of action and issues of fraud are alleged.
|
