1884 (5) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Suit Over Malikana Money Upheld Due to Res Judicata & Limitation

Bhugwat Pershad and Ors. Versus Gopi Nath Chobey

Bhugwat Pershad and Ors. Versus Gopi Nath Chobey - TMI Issues Involved:1. Right to Malikana Money2. Res Judicata3. LimitationDetailed Analysis:1. Right to Malikana MoneyThe plaintiffs sought to establish their right to certain malikana money in respect of a 6 annas 17d. 18c. share of dearah Afzulpur. Historically, the dearah accreted before 1825 and was treated as part of the permanently-settled estate No. 319, Syedpur Mosleh. In 1860, Rowshun Ali sued Behari Lal for possession of 5 annas of the dearah, and the court concluded that Behari Lal had no right to dearah Afzulpur, while Rowshun Ali did. The Collector in 1866, relying on the 1860 decision, recognized Rowshun Ali's right to malikana and not Behari Lal's. The plaintiffs, having purchased Behari Lal's interest, applied for registration of their names for the malikana share, which was opposed by the defendant Gopi Nath Chobey.2. Res JudicataThe defendant argued that the 1860 decision was res judicata, barring the plaintiffs' claim. The District Judge overruled this plea, stating the 1860 suit did not involve the malikana issue, was not litigated under the same title, and was tried by a Munsif not competent to try the present suit. However, the High Court disagreed, stating the substantial question in both suits was the proprietary right to the dearah. The 1860 decision established Rowshun Ali's (and by extension, Gopi Nath Chobey's) title to the dearah, which remained unextinguished. The court also clarified that the competence of the court should be assessed based on its jurisdiction at the time of the first suit, making the 1860 decision binding.3. LimitationThe court considered whether the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 131, 144, or 120. The plaintiffs' claim was for a periodically recurring right (malikana), and the court noted that adverse possession by Rowshun Ali began in 1866 when the Collector recognized his right. Under Article 131, the suit should have been brought within twelve years from the first refusal of the right in 1866. Similarly, under Article 120, the suit should have been brought within six years from the date of refusal. The court concluded that the suit was barred by limitation.Conclusion:The High Court reversed the lower Appellate Court's decision and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on grounds of both res judicata and limitation. The plaintiffs' claim to the malikana money was barred by the previous 1860 decision and the statutory limitation periods. The suit was dismissed with costs in all courts.