2009 (10) TMI 983 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide adoption and Watandari rights.
2. Binding nature of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 104/1953 on subsequent suits and proceedings.
3. Applicability of res judicata to subsequent proceedings.
4. Impact of the 1941 order recognizing plaintiffs as Watandars on subsequent claims by Vithu.
5. State Government's authority to direct re-examination of Watandari rights.
6. Validity of the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 22.11.1989 in light of previous civil court judgments and regrant orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, and the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958, exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide the plea of adoption and Watandari rights. It was concluded that the question of adoption, which pertains to the status and legal character of an individual, falls within the purview of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and thus, a suit for declaration before a civil court is maintainable. The Collector's jurisdiction is limited to deciding hereditary interest in watan lands, not the legal status of adoption.

2. Binding Nature of Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 104/1953:
The Court held that the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 104/1953, which concluded that Vithu was not the adopted son of the deceased Watandar, is binding on the parties in subsequent suits and proceedings. The civil court's decision on adoption, confirmed by the appellate court and the High Court, precludes re-examination by revenue authorities.

3. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The principle of res judicata, codified in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was applied. The Court emphasized that once a matter is decided by a competent court, it cannot be reopened in subsequent litigation between the same parties. The decision in the 1953 suit, which included a specific finding on Vithu's adoption, operates as res judicata in subsequent proceedings, including those before the Sub-Divisional Officer.

4. Impact of the 1941 Order:
The 1941 order by the Deputy District Collector, recognizing the plaintiffs as Watandars, was accepted by the civil court and became final. This order, confirmed by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 962 of 1958, precludes Vithu from re-agitating the matter before the State Government or other authorities.

5. State Government's Authority:
The Court held that the State Government had no authority to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to re-examine Watandari rights, especially in light of the final and binding civil court decrees. The Watan Abolition Act, 1958, does not empower the State Government to issue such directions, and any such action is beyond the statutory framework.

6. Validity of the Sub-Divisional Officer's Order:
The Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 22.11.1989, which recognized Vithu as Watandar despite the civil court's judgment, was invalid. The Court emphasized that the civil court's findings on adoption and Watandari rights are binding and cannot be disregarded by revenue authorities. The previous regrant order dated 03.6.1963 in favor of the appellants under Section 5(1) of the Watan Abolition Act, 1958, was final and could not be reviewed or modified by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reaffirming the binding nature of the civil court's judgment on adoption and Watandari rights. The appeals were allowed, and the orders recognizing Vithu as Watandar were invalidated. The principle of res judicata was upheld, and the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of adoption and legal status was confirmed.