2002 (11) TMI 770 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms jurisdiction to withdraw suits, dismisses claims on res judicata and locus standi.

Abdul Rahman Versus Prasony Bai & Anr

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's jurisdiction to withdraw and dispose of the suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to withdraw and dispose of the suit u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Application of the principles of res judicata.3. Locus standi of the appellant to file the suit.4. Adverse possession claim by the appellant.Summary:Jurisdiction of the High Court:The appellant contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw the suit and dispose of it u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had the requisite jurisdiction to suo moto withdraw a suit to its file and adjudicate it. The appellant did not raise any question regarding the lack of jurisdiction and even participated in the proceedings, making an offer to purchase the property in question.Application of Res Judicata:The High Court and the Division Bench applied the principle of constructive res judicata, holding that the appellant's suit was barred as the issues had already been adjudicated in previous proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed this, stating that the issues of res judicata and constructive res judicata can be adjudicated as preliminary issues. The appellant's claims had been previously decided by the revenue authorities and upheld by the High Court, thus barring the current suit.Locus Standi:The appellant's locus standi to question the relationship between the 1st Respondent and Mangal Singh was dismissed. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant did not raise this issue in the earlier proceedings and allowed the decisions of the Board of Revenue to attain finality. The appellant's writ petition was also dismissed, and the civil suit was filed three years after the adjudication of the rights of the parties in the mutation proceedings.Adverse Possession:The appellant claimed adverse possession, asserting that he had been cultivating the land in question. The Supreme Court dismissed this claim, stating that as a tenant of Mangal Singh, the appellant could not have questioned Mangal Singh's title. The initiation of escheat proceedings by the State indicated that Mangal Singh had the right title to the land, and the appellant was allotted the land on this premise.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it with costs, emphasizing that the appellant had taken recourse to abuse of the process of the court. The litigation should be allowed to attain finality in public interest, and the appellant's repeated attempts to litigate the same issues were discouraged.