Supreme Court of India Abdul Rahman vs Prasony Bai & Anr on 20 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 718, 2003 (1) SCC 488, 2003 AIR SCW 14, (2002) 8 SCALE 479, 2002 (7) SLT 83, 2003 (1) SRJ 170, 2003 (1) BLJR 345, (2003) 1 ALLMR 1208 (SC), 2003 (1) ALL CJ 696, 2003 BLJR 1 345, 2003 ALL CJ 1 696, 2003 (1) UJ (SC) 280, 2003 UJ(SC) 1 280, (2003) 3 ALLINDCAS 851 (PAT), (2003) 1 BLJ 460, (2003) 2 ALL WC 1678, (2003) 2 LANDLR 168, (2003) 1 PAT LJR 273, (2002) 8 SUPREME 253, (2003) 1 RECCIVR 236, (2003) 2 ICC 549, (2003) 1 JLJR 269, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 306, (2002) 4 CURCC 194 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7497 of 2002 PETITIONER: Abdul Rahman RESPONDENT: Prasony Bai & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2002 Ruma Pal & S.B. Sinha. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J: Leave granted. Mangal Singh (since deceased) and the 1st Respondent herein, were originally residents of Pakistan. As a displaced person in India, Mangal Singh was allotted land measuring 11 bighas 16 biswas in Village Shorba, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar. The said Mangal Singh died, whereafter a report was made by the village Patwari on or about 31.3.1978 to the effect that he had died intestate without any heir. Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, escheat proceedings were initiated by the Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas on or about 12.3.1979. The possession of the land in question was taken by the Patwari from the 1st Respondent on 28.3.1979. A part of the land in question was allotted to the appellant by the Tehsildar on 11.5.1979. The 1st Respondent herein questioned the said allotment of land made in favour of the appellant herein. The Additional Collector by his order dated 24.8.1979 set aside the order of taking possession and restored possession thereof to Prasony Bai, the 1st Respondent herein, and cancelled the allotment of land to the appellant. Against the said cancellation order dated 24.8.1979 made in favour of the 1st Respondent, an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 28.11.1985 while maintaining the said order of cancellation of allotment observed that : "(1) the order was passed behind the back of the party i.e. Parsony Bai; (2) that Tehsildar should not have allotted the land to Abdul Rahman without giving notice to persons in whose name the land already stood; (3) that it was therefore, clear that Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas Harish Chandra had acted in most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to Abdul Rahman; and (4) that for the highhandedness the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the Tehsildar." The appellant herein questioned the said order of the Board of Revenue before the High Court by way of filing a writ petition which was marked as S.B. A mutation proceeding was also initiated for mutating the name of the 1st Respondent which was also contested by the appellant. The name of the 1st Respondent was ultimately directed to be mutated by order dated 31.5.1993 by the Board of Revenue. An application for review was filed thereagainst by the appellant but the same was also dismissed by order dated 14.6.1999. Although it does not appear from the records, the appellant herein in his written submissions, (although not contended in oral argument) alleges that the escheat proceeding is still pending. Some time in the year 1999, the appellant herein filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kishangarhbas, which was marked as Civil Suit No.17 of 1999, praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs : 1) to declare that Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh; 2) that the plaintiff is in adverse possession even during the life of Mangal Singh; 3) permanent injunction. In the said suit, having regard to the pleadings of the parties thereto the following three issues were framed : 1) Whether the dispute of the civil suit in question had already been decided and adjudicated upon by the courts and whether it is hit by the principles of res judicata ? 2) Whether the suit is beyond limitation ? 3) Whether the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit ? An additional issue was framed on 10.8.1999 by the trial court, as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the said suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant filed a civil revision application before the High Court as regards the legality of the order of the trial court framing the 4th issue. By an order dated 24.10.2000, the said civil revision application was allowed by the High Court. The said order was passed, inter alia, on the ground that counsel for the 1st the Respondent stated that his clients who are ladies were being harassed on one or the other count and they had no objection if Issue