9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1233 - HC - Indian LawsAcquisition of suit property under notification dated 13.4.1964 - interference to the possession or not - principles of constructive res-judicata - principles of estoppels, acquiescence and waiver - time limitation - Whether the present suit by the BDA was barred on the doctrine of res judicata? - HELD THAT - The defendant in the earlier proceedings was at best seeking to protect his possession, while claiming under a lease deed executed by the BDA. He was not competent to represent the lessor nor was in a position to remove any doubts created about the validity of the acquisition proceedings, whether the recommendation by the CITB was acted upon, withdrawn from the acquisition proceedings and whether the acquisition proceedings had been completed in all respects. The presumption on his part would naturally be that BDA had valid title in putting him in possession as a lessee. He was certainly not an agent of the BDA. It cannot hence be said that the present suit was between the same parties or anybody claiming under the earlier party. In so far as the BDA was concerned, the defendant in the earlier suit may have been claiming under it, the BDA was certainly not claiming under him. To place them on par as one having adequately represented the other, does not stand to reason or the law. The suit was not barred as being res judicata. Whether the BDA was bound by the judgment and decree in OS. No. 554/1981? - HELD THAT - It is significant that the trial court had arrived at a categorical finding that the BDA was not a necessary party to the suit. When it was BDA that could claim as the owner of the property and the defendant in the said suit was only a lessee in occupation with a limited right. The lessee was hardly competent to represent the BDA or the CITB, against whom the trial court was in effect granting relief in favour of the plaintiffs. Any such finding which had the effect of effacing the right, title and interest of the BDA, to the property in question, without the BDA being made a party to the suit, would not bind the BDA - The fact that two witnesses had appeared on behalf of the BDA to produce certain records pertaining to the suit schedule property, in the course of the suit, cannot be construed as being akin to the BDA having been privy to the proceedings and having been in a position to plead its case or contest the claim of the plaintiffs. Those witnesses were representing BDA for the limited purpose of producing records, pursuant to a witness summons. They were not even shown to be the authors of any of the documents so produced and marked. Whether the judgment and decree in OS 554/1981 could not be challenged by the BDA, as not binding it? - HELD THAT - The present suit having been filed immediately thereafter, was certainly maintainable. It may be that in a proceeding, as between parties who were before the apex court, even if erroneous findings have been arrived at and affirmed, such parties would not be in a position to re-open the matter on other and more relevant material, albeit neither considered or brought to the attention of the court. But that embargo would not apply to one who was not a party to the earlier proceeding and is in a position to demonstrate that there were legal impediments to the very maintainability of the suit, apart from demonstrating that he is the party actually affected. As is the BDA, in the present circumstances. Whether the suit by the BDA was barred by limitation? - HELD THAT - A contention that a cause of action arose to the BDA immediately on the BDA becoming aware of the controversy and claim raised by the plaintiffs in OS 554/1981, may not be an acceptable reason for the court below in having come to a conclusion that the BDA did have such knowledge and hence ought to have filed a suit immediately and that the suit filed in the year 2008 being barred by limitation is not tenable. A cause of action arose only when the judgment and decree became final and the possibility of the BDA being deprived of the property loomed large. Whether the want of jurisdiction in the civil court, to test the validity of compulsory acquisition proceedings, was ever present to the mind of the trial court or the appellate courts in the earlier proceedings and the trial court in the present suit? - HELD THAT - A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any occasion is not ratio decidendi - Any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but rigidity beyond reasonable limits is mimical to the growth of law. The trial court as may be seen from the tenor of the judgment and by the extensive reference to case law, has proceeded to place reliance on the same in affirming the findings arrived at earlier, as if it was a court exercising writ jurisdiction, in addressing the infirmities, if they could be so construed, in so far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned - The trial court has hence erred in placing reliance on the findings arrived at earlier and in not addressing the suit by the BDA in its proper perspective. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the present suit by the BDA was barred on the doctrine of res judicata. 2. Whether the BDA was bound by the judgment and decree in OS. No. 554/1981. 3. Whether the judgment and decree in OS 554/1981 could not be challenged by the BDA, as not binding it. 4. Whether the suit by the BDA was barred by limitation. 5. Whether the want of jurisdiction in the civil court, to test the validity of compulsory acquisition proceedings, was ever present to the mind of the trial court or the appellate courts in the earlier proceedings and the trial court in the present suit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Doctrine of Res Judicata The trial court framed an additional issue regarding whether the suit is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. The court concluded that the BDA would suffer the decree passed against the defendant in the earlier suit because the defendant was an allottee claiming under the BDA. However, the trial court proceeded on the misconception that the lessee was competent to represent the BDA. The court held that the BDA was not adequately represented in the earlier proceedings and that the suit was not barred as being res judicata. Issue 2: Binding Nature of Judgment and Decree in OS 554/1981 The trial court in OS 554/1981 concluded that the land was denotified based on a resolution passed by the CITB and that the BDA was not a necessary party to the suit. The appellate court and the Supreme Court affirmed this judgment. However, the BDA contended that it was not a party to the earlier suit and that the lessee was not competent to represent the BDA. The court held that the BDA was not bound by the judgment and decree in OS 554/1981 because the BDA was not a party to the suit, and the lessee could not adequately represent the BDA. Issue 3: Challenge to Judgment and Decree in OS 554/1981 The suit in OS 554/1981 attained finality with the Supreme Court's decision. The present suit was filed immediately thereafter. The court held that the BDA could challenge the judgment and decree because it was not a party to the earlier proceedings and could demonstrate legal impediments to the maintainability of the earlier suit. Issue 4: Barred by Limitation The court found that the cause of action for the BDA arose only when the judgment and decree in OS 554/1981 attained finality before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the suit filed immediately thereafter was within the limitation period. The court rejected the contention that the BDA should have filed a suit immediately upon becoming aware of the controversy. Issue 5: Jurisdiction to Test Validity of Compulsory Acquisition Proceedings The trial court in OS 554/1981 proceeded on the premise that the suit property was denotified and that the plaintiffs were never divested of it. The question of whether the suit was maintainable if the property was subject to compulsory acquisition proceedings was never considered. The trial court in the present suit erred by relying on the findings of the earlier proceedings without addressing the suit by the BDA in its proper perspective. The court held that the question of jurisdiction had passed sub silentio in the earlier proceedings and was deliberately brushed aside in the present suit. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was decreed as prayed for by the BDA.
|
