Res judicata and adverse possession rules: final revenue and partition adjudications on title bind later civil suits.

A final adjudication by a revenue court on title, made within jurisdiction under tenancy proceedings, can operate as res judicata in a later civil suit. An order of a partition court under the Land Revenue Act may also have the same effect where it amounts to a conclusive determination of title in favour of the auction-purchaser. Possession by co-sharers or lambardars, including receipt of rent, is not adverse unless it is shown to be hostile to the other co-sharers. The auction-sale was treated as carrying the appurtenant interest in the shamlat patti along with the principal pattis. The suit was dismissed and the trial court's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue court's decision under the Tenancy Act operated as res judicata on the question of title. (ii) Whether the partition court's order under the Land Revenue Act operated as res judicata in favour of the defendants. (iii) Whether the plaintiffs had established adverse possession, and whether the auction-sale conveyed the defendants' interest in the shamlat patti.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue court's decision under the Tenancy Act operated as res judicata on the question of title.

Analysis: The revenue court had determined title while proceeding on the footing that the defendants were not recorded as co-sharers, and that determination was within its jurisdiction under the relevant tenancy provision. The decision was final and, for purposes of res judicata, was to be treated as a civil court decision competent to decide the present suit.

Conclusion: The revenue court's decision operated as res judicata, but in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiffs.

Issue (ii): Whether the partition court's order under the Land Revenue Act operated as res judicata in favour of the defendants.

Analysis: The partition court's order expressly stated that the shamlat had also been sold and rejected the objection, which amounted to a declaration of title in the auction-purchaser. The order was not merely a reference to civil court remedy; it was a final adjudication under the relevant land revenue provision and had the effect of a civil court decree.

Conclusion: The partition court's order operated as res judicata in favour of the defendants.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiffs had established adverse possession, and whether the auction-sale conveyed the defendants' interest in the shamlat patti.

Analysis: Receipt of rent by the plaintiffs did not amount to adverse possession because they were lambardars and co-sharers, so their possession was not hostile to the other co-sharers. The auction-sale was held to have carried the appurtenant interest in the shamlat patti along with the interest in the principal pattis, even without specific mention in the sale deed.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession failed, and the auction-sale was held to have conveyed the relevant interest to the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate decree was set aside and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit was restored, with costs throughout awarded to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A final adjudication by a revenue or partition court on title, made within jurisdiction and not appealed from, can operate as res judicata in a civil suit, and permissive possession by co-sharers or lambardars is not adverse possession.

---