Case: Raj Lakshmi Dasi And Others Vs. Banamali Sen And Othersbholanath Sen And Othersv.Raj Laksh

(1) These two connected. appeals from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in appeal from original Decree NO. 43 of 1942 dated 6/5/1946, arise out of Title Suit NO. 63 of 1938, instituted on 21/9/1938 in the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Alipore, by Rajlakshmi against the Sens and the Dasses for possession of the properties which represent a four anna share of the estate once held by one Raj Ballav Seal.(2) On 8/6/1870, two days before his death, Raj Ballav Seal,a Hindu inhabitant of the town of Calcutta governed by the Bengal School of Hindu law, executed a will giving authority to his widow Mati Dassi to adopt a son and apointed her and three other persons as executors and trustees of the estate and gave them elaborate directions for the administration and distribution of his extensive properties. Raj Bhallav was one of those persons Who believe in leaving detailed instructions about their property and the manner in which it is to be managed and taken after their death and expect their wishes to be dutifully carried out by those who survive them. How his wishes have been respected by his descendants is now a matter of history. Since the year 1890 this is the eighth or ninth litigation concerning the construction of the testament he made on that fateful day, and if by any means Raj Ballav could be informed of the result of these litigations and was told that it had been held that he, had died intestate,he would surely rise out of me ashes and lodge an emphatic protest against what has happened.(3) Raj Ballav died on 10/6/1870 leaving him surviving his widow Mati Dassi and three grand sons, who were sons of a predeceased daughter by another wife, and one of whom died in 1880 unmarried. The grandsons line will be referred to in this judgment as the Sens. On Raj Ballavs death Mati Dassi entered into possession of the estate and adopted one Jogandra Nath Seal in 1873 under the authority conferred on her. Jogendra married Katyayani, and Rajlakshmi, the plantiff in the suit out of which these appeals arise, is their only child. She was less than one year old when Jogendra died inShortly after the death of Jogendra, Mati Dassi adopted Amulya Charan, a brother of Katyayani in further exercise of the authority conferred on her. Mali Dassi died in 1890 and the Sens then appeared to have taken possession of the estate. During the lifetime of Mati Dassi, the two grandsons commenced a suit on 22/7/1890 against Mati Dassi and the other executors then living, Amulya and Katyayani for a declaration of the rights of the parties under the will, administration of the estate, accounts and a declaration as regards their quarter share of the net income. Trevelyan J. declared that the grandsons were entitled to a one-fourth share of the estate absolutely and directed accounts to be taken. This declaration was granted against Mati Dassi alone the suit having been dismissed against the other defendants. The two grandsons having taken possession of the whole estate after the death of Mati Dassi, Amulya brought a suit on 9/10/1901 against them and Katyayani for construction of the will and a declaration that he was the duly adopted son and heir of Raj Ballav and that as such, he was entitled to a three-fourth share of the estate and the Sens were entitled only to the remaining one fourth share. By a judgment dated 5/1/1903 the trial Court dismissed the suit on the view that under the will the first adopted son had acquired an absolute right, title and interest in the share of the estate left by the will of his adoptive father and he having left a widow and a daughter, Mati Dassi had no authority to make a second adoption. This decision was affirmed on appeal. Amulya Charan Seal v. Kalidas Sen, 32 Cal. 861.(4) On 13/1/1903, eight days after the-decision of the trial Court dismissing Amulyas suit, Katyayani commenced suit No. 11 of 1903 against the Sens Amulya and the receiver appointed in Amulyas suit, for constriction of the will, declaration of title, partition and accounts. In the plaint as originally filed, Katyayani admitted the title of the Sens to a one-fourth share of the estate and claimed only a three-fourth share for herself as the widow of Jogendra. The Sens claimed the whole estate for themselves as the heirs of Raj Ballav. They pleaded that the will was not genuine and that even if it was genuine the bequests in favour of the adopted son and for the worship of the deity were invalid and that even if they were valid, Jogendra having died before attaining the age of 20 years had taken nothing under the will.(5) During the pendency of this suit, on 25/9/1903 the sons mortgaged the whole sixteen annas of the estate to one Shib Krishna Das in order to secure a loan of Rs. 7,000. The mortgagee and his representatives in interest will be described in this judgment as the Dasses. Amulyas appeal against the judgment of the trial Court dated 5/1/1903 was decided in 1905, during the pendency of Katyayanis suit No. 11 of 1903 instituted on 13/1/1903 and after the Dasses as mortgagees had entered into possession. On 26/9/1905, after the decision of the High Court in Amulyas suit, Katyayani applied for an amendment of the plaint so as to include a claim for the whole estate in accordance with that decision. This application was allowed. To this amended plaint no further written statement was filed by the Sens. By a judgment dated 21/12/1905 the trial Judge decreed the claim of Katyayani for the whole of Raj Ballavs estate and a decree for recovery of possession of the whole estate was passed in her favour. It was held that the whole of the corous of the estate had vested in Jogendra and the provisions of the will whereby a fourth share had been bequeathed to the grandsons were void and ineffectual. The plea of adverse possession and limitation taken by the Sens was abandoned at the trial.(6) Against this decision an appeal was taken to the District Judge. The mortgagee Shib Krishna Das was also added as a party In the appeal. The appeal was compromised and under the compromise Katyayani was to get a six anna share in absolute right in the estate, Kanai, her father, was to get another six anna share for his supposed troubles and expenses in connection with the litigation and each of the Sens a two anna share, their shares to be subject to the mortgage charge. The compromise decree was passed on 9/1/1907 and the suit was remanded to the trial Court in order that a partition might be effected and a final decree passed. A partition was made in due course and final decree was passed on 10/9/1907.(7) On 18/4/1907, after the consent decree had been made by the appellate Court in Katyayanis suit, Rajlakshmi, daughter of Katyayani and the next reversioner to the estate of Jogendra, commenced suit No. 59 of 1907 against the parties to the compromise for a declaration that the compromise and the consent decree were void and inoperative and that they were not binding on her. The trial Court held that the compromise was binding on Rajlakshmi but that she was entitled to a declaration that Katyayani had taken only a widows estate in the six annas share given to her. On appeal by Rajlakshmi, the High Court on 8/8/1910 reversed the trial Courts decree and declared that the consent decree was void and inoperative as against Rajlakshmi and that she was in no way bound by the partition proceedings which had taken place in execution thereof. The appeal was not contested by the Sens but was contested by the representatives of their mortgagees (the Dasses) who asserted the title of their mortgagors to a one-fourth share of the estate both under the compromise decree and the will Railakshmi Dassee v. Katyayani Dassee, 38 Cal. 639  .(8) In the year 1919, two cross suits were commenced by the grandsons and by Katyayani and Rajlaskhmi for recovery of the twelve annas share and the four annas share respectively in the possession of the respective parties. Katyayani brought suit No. 115 of 1919 for recovery of the four anna share against the Sens and the Dasses, while the Sens brought suit No. 112 of 1919 for recovery of the twelve annas share of the estate against Katyayani and Rajlakshmi. Both these suits were dismissed by the trial Judge and his decision was affirmed on appeal onBefore the commencement of this suit, the Dasses had brought a suit on the foot of their mortgage and had obtained a mortgage decree which was made final on 23/11/1918.(9) The property described as 2, Deb Lane, Calcutta, forming part of Raj Ballavs estate and which had been allotted under the compromise to the share of the Sens was notified by a declaration under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition onOn 27/4/1928 Ajit Nath Das, mortgagee made an application claiming the entire amount of compensation money and contended that the mortgagee decree-holders were entitled to the whole of it. Rajlakshmi claimed the entire amount as owner of the sixteen anna share of Raj Ballavs estate. On 7/7/1928 as joint award was made in favour of all the claimants. Rajlakshmi asked for a reference to the Court on the point of apportionment of compensation by a petition made by her on 18/7/1928. She asserted that the Sens and the Dasses were not entitled to any portion of the compensation money. Ajit Nath Das, mortgagee, also made an application for reference on 18/8/1928. A similar petition was made by Jogender Mohan Das. Bholanath Sen filed a statement of the claim on 8/6/1929. A special Judge was appointed under the land Acquisition Act to try the matter. He disallowed Rajlakshmis claim and held that the Sens were entitled to the entire compensation money. Both the Sens and the Dasses were represented by their respective counsel and made common cause against Rajlakshmi. Rajlakshmi appealed to the High Court against the decision of the special Judge but without any success. Her appeal was dismissed onShe preferred an appeal to the Privy Council. This was allowed and Rajlakshmi was declared entitled to the entire compensation money. Rajlakshmi v. Bholanath Sen, 65 Ind. App.Within two months of the decision of the Privy Council, the suit out of which these appeals arise was commenced, as already stated, by Rajlakshmi on 21/9/1938 against the Sens and the Dasses for possession of the properties which represented the four anna share of the estate allotted to the Sens, and possession of which was delivered to them in pursuance of the terms of the final decree in Suit No. 11 ofA portion of these had, since then been purchased by the Dasses in execution of the mortgage decree. This suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. Rajlakshmi appealed to the High Court against the dismissal of her suit. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, the judgment and decree of the trial Court in so far as they dismissed the plaintiffs suit as against the Sens were set aside and the suit was decreed against them and the plaintiffs title to the properties in suit was declared as against them. It was ordered that she should recover possession from them, as also from defendant 14 as receiver but that her title and possession were subject to the rights of defendants-respondents 3 to 13 (Dasses) to proceed against the properties in execution of their mortgage decree on the basis that these properties were in the possession of and dealt with by defendants-respondents 1 and 2 as representing the four anna share of the estate to which they had title. An enquiry was also ordered as to the amount of the mesne profits. The appeal was dismissed as against respondents 3 to 13, the Dasses. The correctness of this decision has been impugned before us in these appeals by the respective parties to the extent that it goes against them.

Reasoning: (14) These two decisions, in our opinion, are conclusive on the point of res judicata raised in the present case and in these circumstances it has to be held that the question of title to the four annas share was necessarily and substantially involved in the land acquisition proceedings and was finally decided by a Court having jurisdiction to try it and that decision thus operates as res judicata and estops the Sens and the mortgagees from reagitating that matter in thisThe High Court held that there can be no question that this decision is binding on the Sens and concludes them on the question of their title as against Rajlakshmi and that there could be no question also that it is binding on the mortgagees who were parties to the proceeding. In the concluding part of the judgment they observed as follows :"Our conclusion, therefore, is that there is nothing in the decision of the Privy Council which can operate as rej-judicata against the Dasses, either directly or constructively, on the question of the title of the Sens to the mortgaged properties. They are bound by the decision so far as it goes: just as the Sens can no longer say that the decision in suit No. 11 is not res judicata against them in a question with the plaintiff, both as regards title and the right to possession, so cannot the Dasses say that the decision is not res judicata against the Sens. But their own right to prove the title of the Sens against the plaintiff is in no way affected. This may look anomalous but such anomaly is inherent in the doctrine of res judicata which does not create or destroy title but is only a rule of estoppel."With great respect it seems to us that the conclusion reached as regards the mortgagees is neither illuminating nor sound. The anomalous result arrived at is on account of a wrong approach to the solution of the problem and is not the result of any anomaly inherent in the doctrine of resview of the provisions of Ss. 9, 10, 18 and 30. Land Acquisition Act, it is evident that if the mortgagee actually intervenes in the land acquisition proceedings and makes a claim for the compensation, and any question of title arises about the right of the mortgagor in respect to the land acquired which affects the claim for compensation he has every right to protect that title. In the proceedings commenced in 1928, for the acquisition of 2, Deb Lane, Calcutta as already stated, the mortgagees actually intervened and defended the title of their mortgagors but without success. In those circumstances, the view taken by the High Court that they had no locus standi to make the claim, as it was not based on their own title cannot be sustained because a mortgagee has no other title than the title of his mortgagor. The judgement of the High Court when it says that the Dasses claimed it on the footing that they being creditors of the Sens, with a lien on the property, were entitled to receive the money towards the satisfaction of their debt and their claim therefore was not a claim of title, but only a claim to receive the compensation money, is clearly erroneous as the claim could be established only by proving the title of their mortgagors as against Rajlakshmi. We have further not been able to follow the judgment of the High Court when it says that the land acquisition Court must be presumed to have dismissed the mortgagees claim on the proper and legal ground that the mortgagees being mere mortgagees had no locus standi to lay claim for the compensation money. It would have been more accurate if it was said that the land acquisition Court having held the title of the Sens proved to the premises acquired, presumed that the compensation money to which the Sens were entitled would be paid in due course to their mortgagees as both of them were sailing together and had a common Cause against Rajlakshmi. The High Court further observed that the mortgagees were bound by the decision of the Privy Council so far as it goes against them. We are not able to see to which part of the decision this remark relates. The only decision that the Privy council gave was on the question of the title at the Sens. The award of compensation to Rajlakshmi was a mere consequence of it, and it the Sens had no title in the four anna share at Raj Ballavs estate, the mortgagees obviously can have no lien on any Part at the property included in that share. The strangest part of the judgment of the High Court is when it says that the right at the Dasses to prove the title of the Sens against the plaintiff was in no way affected by the Privy council decision. It seems to have lost sight of the fact that that right was advanced by the Dasses more than once. It was exercised by them in the litigation of the year 1907 which ended in the decision of the High Court in 1910. It was exercised by them in the 1919 litigation and was again exercised by them in the land acquisition proceedings at 1928. In these circumstances, it appears to us that they had no further right left to establish the title of their mortgagors in the four-anna share of Raj Ballavs estate claimed bycontention is directly opposed to the provisions of s. 58, T. P. Act and the clear provisions of s. 73 which only states the law that prevailed even before then The result is that we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in holding that the decision of the Privy Council in the land acquisition case of 1928 was not binding on the mortgagees on the question of the title of the Sens to the four anna share of Raj Ballavs estate as againstof his arguments, however, was convincing and might well have been summarily rejected but we think that it is due to Mr. Ghose and his long standing at the Bar that the arguments are noticed andour opinion, this argument is untenable and was negatived by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bhagwati v. Ram Kali, 66 I. A.145 cited above, in clear and emphatic terms. In that case, in a regular suit which concerned the rest of the property the plea of res judicata was upheld by reason of the decision in the land acquisition cases which concerned another part of the property which had been acquired and for which compensation was payable. The quotation already cited earlier from this decision brings out that point clearly. The test of res judicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the twocondition regarding the competency of the former Court to try the subsequent suit is one of the limitations engrafted on the general rule of res judicata by s.11of the Code and has application to suits alone. When a plea of res judicata is founded on general principles of law, all that is necessary to establish is that the Court that heard and decided the former case was a Court of competent jurisdiction. It does not seem necessary in such cases to further prove that it has jurisdiction to hear the later suit. A plea of res judicata on general principles can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of Courts of exclusive jurisdiction like revenue Courts, land acquisition Courts, administration Courts, etc. It is obvious that these Courts are not entitled to try a regular suit and they only exercise special jurisdiction conferred on them by the statute. We have not been able to appreciate the distinction sought to be made out by Mr. Ghose that had this matter been decided by a District Judge, then the decision of the Privy Council would have been res judicata but as it was by a special Judge the effect was different. The District Judge when exercising powers of a Court under the Land Acquisition Act, in that capacity is not entitled to try a regular suit and his jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is quite different from the jurisdiction he exercises on the regular civilplea has no substance in it. The decree given in suit No. 11 of 1903 became un-executable by reason of the compromise arrived at in appeal in that case in 1907, which compromise was given full effect by actual partition of the property. When that decree was declared null and void at the instance of Rajlakshmi, it still remained binding inter parts during the lifetime of Katyyani and that was the reason why Katyayanis suit brought in 1919 for recovery of possession of the four anna share was dismissed. That suit, however, was held to have been instituted by Katyayani for protection of her personal rights and not as a representative of Jogindras estate. It was for this reason that the privy Council in the 1928 land acquisition case held that it had not the effect of res judicata on Rajlakshmis suit claiming title in the four anna share of Raj Ballavs estate which under the partition decree had gone to the Sens. Katyayani in view of the compromise decree had no right to execute the decree as a different situation had arisen after the decree had been passed. She had a fresh cause of action to bring a new suit for possession by setting aside the compromise. This she did but failed. As against Rajlakshmi the plea of s. 47 in these circumstances can have no validity. Even as against Katyayani it was untenable and it seems it was for this reason that this plea was never taken either in the earlier suit of 1919 or in the present suit. For the reasons given above this contention of Mr., Ghose alsopremises on which this contention is based is erroneous. Jogindra died long before the Sens took possession of the property and therefore Jogindra before his death had no cause of action against the Sens to eject them as they were not in possession. On the other hand, the trustees were holding the property on his behalf. The pleas of limitation and adverse possession were abandoned by the Sens on a former occasion, as already stated in the earlier part of this judgment, and they were negatived by the Privy Council in the land acquisition proceedings. It is evident that the possessions of the Sens during the lifetime of Katyayani could not confer any title on them as against Rajlakshmi, the next reversioner, whose title to the estate could only arise on the death of Katyayani.