l Appeals Nos
67 to 75 of 1959
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 7 1954 of the UP Board of Revenue in Second Appeals Nos
53 to 61 of 1945 46
section P sinha J P Goyal and Sadhu Singh for the appellants
Bishan Narain and E L Mehta for the respondents
February 15
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J
These nine
appeals by special leave are against the orders of the Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh dismissing nine 219 second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned on the ground that the orders of the First Appellate Court in three other connected first appeals had become final and operated as res judicata
Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh Hoshiar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh
Each of these brothers instituted four suits
Hoshiar Singh instituted suit No 48 of 1944 under section 175 of the UP Tenancy Act 1939 UP XVII of 1939 against one Bhartu suit No49 against Har Gyan Mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram sons of Sis Ram brother of Bhartu suit No50 against Har Gyan and Mukhtiar Singh sons of Sis Ram and suit No 51 against one Banwari
Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos 63 61 60 and 62 against similar defendents respectively
Mukhtiar Singh s suits against those defendants respectively
were Nos67 65 64 and 66
Each of these suits was for different sets of plots
The allegations of the plaintiffs in each suit and the contentions of the defendent in each suit were similar and therefore similar issues were framed in each suit and all the suits were tried together and were disposed of by one common judgment
Twelve decrees were however prepared
Against the twelve decrees the defendants judgment debtors in each decree filed twelve first appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner Meerut Division
The Additional Commissioner dismissed three appeals for default These were the appeals which were filed against Hoshiar Singh Karam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by Banwari
The Additional Commissioner heard the remainmg nine appeals on merits and dismissed them
The defendants judgment debtors then filed nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue
They were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7 1954
The applications for special leave were filed in this Court in November 1954
Special leave was 220 granted on April 18 1955
By the time the appeals came up for hearing some other events took place and as a result of them the respondents filed an application for adducing additional evidence under OXLV rr 1 to 5 Supreme Court Rules in November 1959 and also included in their statement of case a narration of those events and their effect
It appeals that the villages in which the lands in suit were situate come under Consolidation Operations under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953U P V of 1954 hereinafter called the Act sometime in July 1954 when a declaration was issued by the State Government under s4 of the Act to the effect that it had been decided to make a Scheme of consolidation for that area
In December 1954 a statement of plots and tenure holders was prepared and in May 1955 a statement of proposals under s19 was prepared in August 1955 final statements in chak form 25 were issued
On October 17 1955 the State Government published a notification under s52 of the Act
section 52 of the Act then read As soon as may be after the tenure holders have entered into possession of their new holding in pursuance of Section 26 the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette that the Consolidation opera tions have been closed in the village and the village shall then cease to be under consolidation operation
 It is thus seen that this village remained under Consolidation operations from some time in July 1954 to October 17 1955
The appellants did not file any objections before the Consolidation authorities under s12 of the Act disputing the correctness or the nature of the entries in the statement prepared under s11 or under s20 against the statement of proposals prepared under s19 221 Section 21 provides for the fixing of a date for the enforcement or the consolidation scheme
Section 25 provides for the issuing of the allotment order showing the new fields allotted to each tenure holder in accordance with the said scheme
Section 26 provides for the tenure holders to enter into possession of the fields allotted to them on or after a certain date
Section 27 provides for the preparation of new village maps khasra and the record of rights in accordance with the Provisions of the U P Land Revenue Act 1901
Its sub s 2 provides that all entries in the record of rights prepared under sub s1 small be final and conclusive Section 30 provides that the rights title interest and liabilities of the tenure holder in his original holding shall be extinguished and he will have the same rights title interest and liabilities subject to modification if any in the plots allotted to him under s25 with effect from the date on which he enters into possession of the plots allotted to him
It was contended for the respondents that in view of these consolidations operation and s5 of the Act as amended up to date these appeals have become infructuous as this Court cannot pass any orders on the merits of the controversy
The Act has been amended several times since it was origi nally enacted
The various amendina Acts are Act XXVI of 1954 which came into force on December 13 1954 Act XIII of 1955 which me into force on June 10 1955 Act XX of 1955 whcih came into force on October 21 1955 Act XXIV of 1956 which came into force on July 3 1956 Act XVI of 1957 which came into force on May 25 1957 and Act XXXVIII of 1958 which came into force on November 19 1958
During the period the village in suit was under Consolidation Operations the Act applicable 222 to the proceedings was the Original Act as amended by Acts XXVI of 1954 and XIII of 1955
The other Acts came into force subsequent to the issue of the notification under s52 of the Act
It is necessary to bear this in mind in view of the contentions raised
Section 5 of Act V of 1954 was as follows 1 Upon the publication of the declaration under section 4 the district or the local area as the case may be shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the date of such publication until this publication of the Notification under section 52 in the official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed
2 Where a district or any other local area is under consolidation operations the duty of preparing and maintaining the maps the khasra and the annual register under Chapter ITI of the UP Land Revenue Act 1901 shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and thereupon all the powers conferred on the Collector Assistant Collecter and the Tahsildar under the said Chapter shall so long as that district or the area remains under consolidation operations be exercised respectively by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer
 Act XXVI of 1954 deleted the last portion of sub s2 commencing from the words and there
No change in this section was made by the Amending Act XIII of 1955
There was therefore nothing in this section which in any way would have affected the hearing of these appeals during or after the consolidation operations
223 Section 12 of Act V of 1954 provided for the publication of the statement of plots and tenure holders prepared under section II and for filing objections disputing the correctness or nature of entries in it
Its subsections 4 5 and 6 were   4 Where the objection filed under sub section 1 involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent court the Consolidation Officer shall refer the question for determination to the Arbitrator
5 All suits or proceedings in the court of first instance or appeal in which a question of title in relation to same land has been raised shall be stayed
6 The decision of the Arbitrator under sub section 4 shall be final
 There was nothing in these sub sections which provided as to how the suits or proceedings stayed been under sub section 5 would be decided or how matters in connection of which no objection bad raised under s12 would be dealt with
These provisions too did not affect the pending Appeals as no objection had been filed under s12
Act XXVI of 1954 amended sub s4 to the effect that the objection coming under sub s4 would be referred to the Civil Judge who will then refer it to the Arbitrator and substituted another sub section in the place of original sub s5
The substituted sub s5 read  5 Upon the making of reference under sub section 4 all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance appeal reference or revision in which the question of title in relation to the same land has been raised shall be stayed This amendment in sub s5 stayed the suits and 224 proceedings not only in the Courts of the first instance and appeal but also in the Courts of reference and revision but did not affect these appeals
Sub s2 of s27 as originally enacted was not amended up to the 17th October 1955
Its sub s2 made the entries in the record of rights Prepared under sub s1 final and conclusive We are not concerned with its effect in these appeals
Section 49 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts
This section before its amendment by Act XTTT of 1955 which came into force on June 10 1955 did not bar the institution of a suit or proceedings in the revenue court
It did so after the amendment
 appeals had been filed long before the amendment
We may state that no objection was raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that these appeals could not have been instituted but we have discussed that matter in view of the fact that the appeals were filed after the State Government had made a declaration under s4 of the Act
We have not been referred to any provision in these Acts viz Act V of 1954 Act xxvr of 1954 and Act XIII of 1955 which would lead to the conclusion that these appeals have become infructuous
Act XX of 1955 made an amendment in s27 of the Act
The amendment however does not affect the question before us
Act XXIV of 1956 which came into force on July 3 1956 substituted a new section 5 in the place of the old
The substituted section 5 read  5
When the declaration under section 4 has been published in the Gazette the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall 225 from the date specified thereunder till the publication of the notification under section 52 in the Official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed ensue in the area to which the declaration relates namely  a the district or the local area as the case may be shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the specified date and the duty of preparing and maintaining the khasra and the annual Register under Chapter III of the UP Land Revenue Act 1901 shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and b all proceedings for the correction of any such records pending before any court or authority shall be stayed but without pre judice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the question before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under sub section 3 of Section 8 or in proceedings commenced under and in accordance with section 10 Clearly cl
b does not apply to these appeals as they have not arisen out of proceedings for the correction of village records
Act XXIV of 1956 made certain amendments in section 11 with which we are not concerned
We are not also concerned with the amendments this Act made in subs
1 of section 12
It substituted a new sub section 5 and added sub section
These new subsections 5 and 7are 5 Upon the publication of the statement under section 11 all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance appeal reference or revision in which the question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to clause c of sub section 1 of section II has been raised shall be 226 stayed to the extent it relates to such plot and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner prescribed
7 A question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement in clause c Of sub section 1 of section 11 which might and ought to have been raised under subsection 1 but had not been raised shall not be raised in any objection filed under subsection 2 of section 20 or under sub section 1 of section 34
 It is for the first time that such suits and proceedings in the various Courts had to be stayed in which a question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to el
c of sub section
1 of section 11 had been raised and that these stayed suits or proceedings were to be decided subsequently in the manner prescribed i e in the manner laid down under rules framed under the Act
These provisions of sub section
5 do not affect the appeals as they were prospective in operation and could apply to those cases only in which at atements under section 11 were filed after the amendment had been made
The amendments made by the other sections of this Act and Act XVI of 1957 do not affect the hearing of the appeals in any way
Thereafter case Act XXXVIII of 1958
This Act again substituted a new section 5 and the relevant portion of the substituted section reads 5Upon the publication of the notification under section 4 in the Official Gazette the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall subject to the provisions of this Act from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under section 52 or sub section 1 of section 6 as
the case may 227 be ensue in the area to which 
the declaration relates namely x x x x x b 1 all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interest over land  or for posses sion of land or for partition pending before any authority or court whether of first ins tance appeal or reference or revision shall stand stayed but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interests in dispute in the said pro ceedings or suits before the consolidation au thorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder ii the findings of consolidation autho rities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right or interest in the land shall be acceptable to the authority or court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may on communication thereof by the parties concerned
proceed with the proceeding or suit as the case may be These provisions operate prospectively
The consequences mentioned in section 5 ensue upon the publication of the notification under section 4 in the Gazette and continue up to the publication of the notification under section 52
They do not continue thereafter and could not operate on these cases in which the notification under section 52 was issued on the 17th October 1955
They do not therefore bar the hearing of these appeals
These a peals have not
therefore become infructuous
Sections 7 8 9 10 11 11 A 11 B 12 12 A 12 B 12 C and 12 D have been substituted by new section which apply to proceedings taken in consolidation operations subsequent to the coming into force of the Amending Act XXXVIII of 1858
Sub section
1 of 228 is
12 makes it clear that the matters mentioned in that sub section cannot be raised subsequent to the date of notification under section 52
There has been no material change made in as 27 and 30 but section 49 now reads 49
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a declaration has been issued under section 4 or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act
 This now provides that the adjudication of  rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area under consolidation operations shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act
This leads practically to the same result to which cl
ii of sub section
b of section 5 leads to
The provisions of this section are not expressly limited to the period between the declaration under section 4 and the notification under section 52 but can be so construed as they relate back to section 5 b ii of the Act as the declara tion and adjudication of rights have to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act
Further the amended provision would apply to the proceedings regarding rights in land in the area for which a declaration under section 4 has been issued after the amendment
We are therefore of opinion that these appeals have not become infructuous
229 On the merits we are of opinion that the Board of Revenue erred in holding that the appeals before it were barred by res judicata
It is essential for any previous Adjudication of a point to bar its consideration second time that the previous adjudication must have been between the same parties and that it be with respect to the same matter
The three suits in which judgments became final were against one Banwari and  not against any of the present appellants
The matter in issue in those three suits were also different from that in the suits which have given rise to these appeals
Each of the twelve suits related to different plots
A common judgment on account of similar questions being raised for decision in the different suits does not always make that judgment amount to one judgment in those suits
Such a judgment will ordinarily be deemed to be really so many judgments as the suits disposed of by it
This Court expressed a similar view in Badri Narayan Singh vs Kamdeo Prasad Singh1
We therefore allow the appeals set aside the order of the Court below and remand the appeals to it for further hearing and decision according to law  We may make it clear that it can take into consideration the effect of the Consolidation Act and proceedings thereunder after giving an opportunity to the parties to submit what they like in regard to them costs to abide the result
Appeals


Summary:
K H and M filed four suits each against four sets of defendants in respect of different sets of plots under section 175 U P Tenancy Act 1939
Since similar points were involved the twelve suits were tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment decreeing them
Twelve decrees were prepared and the defendants preferred twelve appeals to the Additional Commissioner
Three appeals by one set of the defendants B were dismissed for default and the remaining nine were dismissed on merits
Against the dismissal of the nine appeals on merits the three sets of defendants preferred nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue but they were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7 1954
In November 1954 the appellants filed petitions for special leave before the Supreme Court and on April 18 1955 special leave was granted
In July 1954 the villages in Which the lands in suit were situate came under consolidation operations under the U P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 and the operations were completed by the publication of a notification 218 under section 52 of the Act on October 17 1953
The appellants did not file any objections before the consolidation authorities
The respondent contended that in view of the consolidation operations the appeals before the Supreme Court had become infructuous
Held that the appeals had not become infructuous
There was nothing in the U P Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 as it stood during the period the village in suit was under consolidation operations which could have in any way affected these appeals during or after the consolidation operations
The subsequent Amending Acts did not affect the appeals as they were prospective in operation and applied only to cases where the consolidation operations were started after the Amending Acts had come into force
Held further that the appeals before the Board of Revenue were not barred by resjudicata
It was essential for the bar of res judicata that the previous and judication must have been between the same parties
The three suits in which judgments had become final were against one B and not against any of the appellants 
The matter in issue in those three suits was different from that in the other nine suits as each of the suits related to different plots
The common judgment was really twelve judgments in the twelve suits
Badri Narayan Singh vs Kamdeo Prasad Singh 1962 3 section C R 759 referred to