Cn/ C ‘g ’ \‘9 ® [1] IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR r" 1g rem l :3 ’Fmmx { SECOND APPEAL No. 14 6 87 OF 2004 APPELLANTS' PKAINTIFFS :— J Emanual son of Benedik aged about 38 years, Occupation- Service. Emil son of Benedik aged 35 years, Occupation- Agriculture. Alimsiyus son of Benedik, aged 3O years, Occupation Service. Prakash son of Benedik, aged 25 years, Occupation- Service. AII by caste- Unraw, all resident of Village Ramsama, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Fulkeriya D/o Basu [wife of DEFENDANTS y Ruben] by caste ‘Unrav, aged 40 years, Occupation— house wife, Resident of village Khajur Bahar, P.S. & Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashput Khristina son of Basu, aged 5O years, by caste- Unraw, Occupation- house wife , resident of village Ramsama, Tahsil- Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur [C.G.] 3. Meri D/o Basu, aged 45 years, Occupation- house wife, resident of village- Sarabkombo, Tahsil- Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur [C.G,] G4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Distt. Jashpur [C.G. ] CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 1‘000/— AND C.F. 1EO/~ ONLY] K J $ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR imie Eench: i-wn’bm Shri Justice Prashant Kama: Mishra Second Appeal Maxims i 2094 PEiLLANTs Emanual and ethers Versus SP®NDENTS \ Fukeriya ané others. ‘ Shri H.B. Agrawat, Seniur Advocate with Miss iturani Mukherjee, a cGunSe§ for the appeliants. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Adveeate fer the ‘ Siatekespcndent No. 4. $ECbI§iB APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1m) OF THE CODE OF CNIL PRQCEDURE cam. ORDER {05.98.2010} o e Heard. {2) This is p§aintiff§ secend appea! ender Sectien 100$ the Code of CM! Procedure. Their‘suit hae been d§emieeed by both the Ceurts bemw en the greund that ih an eariier suit between the parties; the title ef the defendents and their entitiemeht has aiready been decided, therefcre the instant suit is barree under the principtee a? res judicata under $eetic—e 11 9f C.P.C. g3) The ptainttffe have med e suit tar dectaretien 0f titie on the euit tend. tt ie net in dispute that the ptaintitfs and defendants No. t ta 3 ere the descendants of tate Mangra, wha had twe sens namety Tharkt and Basu. The ptatntitfs are legal representatives ef"Tharkt whereas the detendante are tega! tepresentatives 0t .Basu. tn an eartier suit bearing Civit Suit Ne. 34FA 187 between the parties. a judgment and decree was passed by the appellate Court in Ctvit Appeat Ne. 2—A/91 in favsur of defendants. w)” AP RE Accerding ta the plaintiffs. on Gabrei was the aciapted sen tat Bagu and we defendants have m right, We er interest in the suit propery. t {5} According to the defenaants, in the eariier suit, it has akeady been decided that Gebrei was not adopted by Baeu and that Basu’s daughter Fuikiriye, the defendant No.1, was deciered a be eniti e the preperty belenging to Basu. The eariier iudgment has beéeme tinai and binding between the parties. Betti the Courts have fednd that the parties in both the suits are iitigating under the eemen titie and that the iseue as te whether‘ the defendant Net Fulkiriye is the iegai representatives et Basu er net has eireedy been determined in the erevieus suit, thereiere the ptesent suit raising the same isse is net maintainabie. {6) Learned eounsei fer the appeiiant submitted that since the pieadings and issues et‘ he eatiier judgmehtkhev‘e net been pieced e record. The deeisien on the piee ef res judicata is QHOHE‘DHS. 7) i hate perused the judgment and decree passed by the triat Ceurt in Civii Suit 34-M8?. This eariier suit, ptefened by 'r‘uitiya and Fiisita oth daugters ef Base was dismissed by the tria Ceurt by its iudgment and decree dated 29-034989, however first aai bearing Citrii Appeal No. 2—Nei was decided in taveur t Fuiiriya and Fitsita vide judgment and decree dated 25-94-199? in this iudgment it has been heid a the piaintitfs defendants of this suit) being dadghters ef Sasu ar entitied to succeed e the preperties of Basu. e t e e } t ted i m u t n { ki b h ~ _“\ i pes " e h \ tht ( (>0 {a} {“3} -3, m me present suit the ciaim cf the piaénti€§ i$ that sinne in the Oraon tribe daughters have ne right and Basu had adapted one Gabrei, the defendant whn are daughter’s afaBasu are net entitiecs to any share én the preperties of Ba$u and that they be deciared awner of the praperties menticned in S¢heduee ~ D of the pta'mt. On perueai 0f the pleading5 in the present suit and the judgment and eeeree paeeed by the fire: appeiiate Ceurt in éhe eemer euit in faveur ef the defendants 0f thts sutt, this 1 Ceurt ie. satisfied that the matter in issue in bath the suits were euhstantiatty same. tn the matter of Ramchandra Bega’t: Senavahe (Beat) hy Lie. am! Others es. Vithu Hire Matter {deeqt by Lee. and Qmers reperted in 2909 (w) 3C3 2.73 Hon‘bte Supreme Court hae hetd that when copies ef judgment and decree peseett tn eettter suit hae deatt with the pieadinge of the parties in extenee, it eanhet be said that there 2e nah-cempttaece at meneatery and basic: requirement regarding the piacement of pieedinge of eariier iitigetienif‘the M recent of subsequent suit. in view ef the etmve, this Ceurt does net Find any eubetantiai questien ef iaw arising ef this eppeat whieh fails and is hereby 5 dismissed. l i i " ’ ‘ ' Sdl- Prashant Kumztr Mishra Judge iWi‘Mh