Res-judicata in Section 11 of the CPC prohibits the Court from trying an issue that has been in issue in a former suit between the same parties: Orissa High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WRIT APPEAL No.606 From the judgment dated 19th September 2006 passed by learned Single Judge in O.J.C. No.53598. Premlal Panda Versus Panchanan Panda and Others Advocate(s) appeared in this case : For Appellant Mr. Sidharth Mishra Advocate For Respondents Mr.Satyanarayan Mohapatra Advocate CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY 21st October 2021 B.P. Routray J. 1. The judgment dated 19th September 2006 of the learned Single Judge passed in OJC No.5350 of 1998 is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. Jagannath had 4 sons namely Krushna Chandra Ugrasena Panchanan and Sahadev. Krushna Chandra died issueless. Ugrasena had three sons namely Mahadev Premlal and Ramlal. Panchanan had one son namely Bhabagrahi and Sahadev had two sons namely Subash and Duryodhan @ Surya Kumar. W.A. No.606 2 3. The dispute pertains to the properties of Krushna Chandra. Initially Bhabagrahi filed Title Suit No.24 42 of 1978 81 praying to declare him as the adopted son of Krushna Chandra Premlal is not the adopted son and the registered Adoption Deed dated 14th December 1977 is invalid and illegal. The learned Munsif in his judgment dated 23rd December 1981 dismissed the suit. Against the same no appeal was 4. Subsequently during the consolidation proceeding Bhabagrahi filed Objection Case No.291 claiming to be the adopted son of late Krushna Chandra and consequent devolution of the properties in his favour. This was dismissed and Bhabagrahi carried it in Appeal Case No.73 of 1992 before the Deputy Director Consolidation which was also dismissed. No further challenge was made to the same. 5. On the other side Panchanan and Premlal also filed different other objection cases. Panchanan filed Objection Case No.291 and 68 of 1991 before the Consolidation Officer with a prayer to record the landed properties of late Krushna Chandra jointly in the names of other three surviving brothers of Krushna Chandra. Premlal filed Objection Case Nos.791 and 191 praying for recording of lands of late Krushna Chandra in his name claiming to be the adopted son of late Krushna Chandra on the basis of the registered Adoption Deed dated 14th December 1977. Those four objection cases were disposed of by common judgment dated 29th April 1992 directing allotment of 1 3rd share of the properties of late Krushna Chandra to each of the brothers namely Ugrasen Panchanan and Sahadev thereby rejecting the claim of Premlal placing reliance on the findings in the judgment of learned Munsif dated 28th December 1981. W.A. No.606 3 Said rejection order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29th April 1992 were challenged in Appeal case Nos.73 77 78 79 and 892 by Premlal and Bhabagrahi. All such appeals were dismissed by common order dated 18th September 1993. Premlal then carried it in revision before the Joint Commissioner of Settlement and Consolidation in RC Case No.594. The Joint Commissioner by judgment dated 27th February 1998 allowed the prayer of Premlal holding him as the adopted son of late Krushna Chandra and directed for recording of all his lands in favour of Premlal. The same was questioned by Panchanan and others in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Revisional Court dated 27th February 1998. As such the present appeal has been filed by Premlal. 6. The short issue involved here is whether the findings recorded by the learned Munsif Sambalpur in T.S. No.24 82 of 1978 81 in judgment dated 23rd December 1981 declaring Premlal as not the adopted son of Krushna Chandra and the registered Deed of Adoption dated 14th December 1977 as invalid and illegal would operate as the res judicata in the subsequent proceeding before the Consolidation 7. Before proceeding to further discussion on the issue it would be better to understand the facts first. The undisputed facts are that Title Suit No.24 878 81 before the Munsif Sambalpur was between the same parties as before the Consolidation Authorities and the learned Munsif Sambalpur was the competent Court in respect of W.A. No.606 4 issue raised before him in the said Title Suit. The issues as framed by the learned Munsif are as follows: i) ii) iii) iv) Is the suit maintainable If Krushna Chandra adopt Premlal Defendant No.2 and present Opposite Party No.1) valid If the Deed of Adoption dated 14th December 1977 in favor of Premlalvalid and genuine and was acted upon Was the Plaintiff Bhabagrahiever taken in adoption by the defendant No. 1 Krushna Chandra and his wife If so is it valid and was acted upon Is there any cause of action To what relief if the plaintiff entitle v) vi) vii) Is the suit barred by Law of Limitation 8. The decision of the Learned Munsif on issue Nos. & are that Krushna Chandra never adopted Premlal and the Deed of Adoption dated 14th December 1977 is not valid and genuine document. The said finding of the learned Munsif has attained finality as no further challenge to his judgment dated 23rd December 1981 was taken up by any of the parties. 9. The Joint Commissioner in his order dated 27th February 1998 disposing of the revision petition which order was impugned in the writ petition held that it will be injustice to bind the Petitioner on the basis of some finding passed against him in the subsequent proceeding by applying principles of res judicata. It was held that the principle of res judicata will not be applicable to the present Consolidation Case and cannot be applied against the Petitioner. By recording such finding in favour of the Petitionerthe Joint Commissioner allowed W.A. No.606 5 the revision in favour of Premlal declaring him to be the adopted son of Krushna Chandra and consequently directed for recording of the land in his favour. 10. The learned Single Judge has given the finding that the issue of 11. The law mandated in Section 11 of the CPC along with 8 adoption of Premlal by Krushna Chandra as well as the Deed of Adoption dated 14th December 1977 was considered by the Munsif as the competent Court and has been conclusively decided against Premlal holding him not to be the adopted son of Krushna Chandra and further the Adoption Deed dated 14th December 1977 as invalid. The learned Single Judge has further held that such an issue having directly and substantially raised in the former suit between the same parties cannot therefore be raised and decided again in the subsequent proceeding before the Consolidation Authority being barred by the principles of res judicata enumerated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure( B.P. Routray) M.K. Panda Sr. Steno W.A. No.606 

Summary: A decision made in the suit on a vital issue involved therein to operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice B.P. Routray in the matter of Premlal Panda Vs. Panchanan Panda and Others [WA/61/2006].  The facts of the case were associated with property disputes. A judgment regarding such was challenged in the appeal. The properties of the four sons of Jagannath, among them Krushna Chandra died without any child. The dispute was concerned with the property of Krushna Chandra. A title suit was filed by Bhabagrahi, who claimed to be the adopted son of Krushna Chandra, the appeal by him was dismissed. An objection case was filed by Premlal praying for the recording of lands of late Krushna Chandra in his name claiming to be the adopted son of late Krushna Chandra. All the objection cases filed were disposed of by common judgment. Later, it was reported that Premlal was not the adopted son and that the claimed Adoption Deed was invalid and illegal.  A revision petition was filed which was disposed of by the Joint Commissioner. It was stated that it was an injustice to bind the petitioner by applying principles of res-judicata. Res-judicata was not applicable to the consolidation case and that the Joint commissioner was in favour of petitioner Premlal, declaring him to be the adopted son.  Considering all the facts and submissions, The Hon’ble Court stated that “… In the instant case the issue in question was substantially in issue in the previous suit, the competency of the earlier court in deciding the issue is not questioned and the parties in the list remains same, the decision of the former court shall definitely operate as res-judicata against all subsequent proceedings including the proceeding before Consolidation Authorities…  The legal position is unambiguous and the findings of the learned Single Judge are based on strong reasons. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same and the writ appeal is dismissed.”