Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Md. Nooman & Ors v. Md. Jabed Alam & Ors
AIR 2010 SCW 5979, [2010] 9 SCC 560
JUDGES: Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha
Date of Decision: 22-09-2010
FACTS:-
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant. The issues were framed regarding plaintiff’s claim as to the title over the property and the relationship between the landlord and tenant. The trial court upheld the plaintiff’s claim for the title but did not grant the decree due to failure to prove relationship of the landlord-tenant. Appellate court also affirmed the order of the trial court. The plaintiff without taking the matter further, subsequently, filed another suit against the defendant seeking declaration of title over the property and recovery of its possession from the defendant with exactly the same facts and issues as in the previous suit. The trial court held a valid cause of action and decreed the suit in favour the plaintiff but was set aside by the first appellate court. In second appeal by the respondents, the High Court set aside the order of the first appellant court on the ground that the both suits were contested on the same claims and between the same parties. Therefore, the appellants filed this instant appeal before the Hon’ble Court.
ISSUES:-
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the title over the property?
- Whether the suit for eviction can be considered as res-judicata for the subsequent suit of title and recovery of possession?
JUDGMENT:-
At the outset, the Hon’ble Court has carefully examined the pleadings of the parties in the two suits and the evidences led by them in support of their respective claims. Ordinarily, in a suit for eviction even if the court goes into the question of title, it examines the issue in an ancillary manner and in such cases any observation or finding on the question of title would certainly not be binding in any subsequent suit on the dispute of title. But there may be exceptions to the general rule and the Hon’ble Court found the present case to fall in that exceptional category. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in holding the earlier suit of eviction as res-judicata for the suit of declaration of title. Its findings on the issue of title would only be incidental and never binding in a proper suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Hon’ble Court relied on Pardip Singh v. Ram Sundar Singh [AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510], wherein, it was held that the decision in a rent suit is not res judicata on the question of title unless that question of title had was expressly raised and decided between the parties. Before forming any opinion it is essential to examine carefully the decision in the rent suit as to whether it operates as res judicata on the question of title or not.
Therefore, on the basis of the above decision, the Hon’ble Court decided that in the instant case question of title raised was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit for eviction. Also, it was properly raised by the parties and expressly decided by the eviction court.
Thus, the High Court was correct in holding the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction operating as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties.
Thereby, in the light of the aforesaid conclusion, the contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without any merit and consequently they were rejected.
HELD:-
It was held that the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
