Res judicata and finality of findings in jointly tried suits remained unresolved as the Bench split and referred the matter.

The Bench considered whether an unappealed finding on title and the character of temple property in a connected suit operated as res judicata in a related appeal, and whether a finding in one jointly tried suit could be altered without an appeal from that suit. One view treated the earlier finding as binding because the issue had been directly and substantially in issue; the opposing view held that the finding was unnecessary to the injunction suit and therefore not conclusive. No majority opinion was reached on either question, and the matter was directed to be placed before another Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the finding recorded in the connected suit on title and the character of the temple property operated as res judicata in the appeal arising from the other suit; (ii) whether a finding in one of the jointly tried suits could be altered in the absence of any appeal from that suit.

Issue (i): Whether the finding recorded in the connected suit on title and the character of the temple property operated as res judicata in the appeal arising from the other suit.

Analysis: One opinion held that the issue of title and the nature of the property had been directly and substantially in issue, was framed and decided on the pleadings, and therefore the unappealed finding bound the parties under the doctrine of res judicata. The other opinion held that the earlier finding on title was unnecessary for disposal of the injunction suit and therefore did not bar reconsideration in the appeal arising from the connected suit.

Conclusion: No majority opinion was reached on whether the earlier finding operated as res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether a finding in one of the jointly tried suits could be altered in the absence of any appeal from that suit.

Analysis: One opinion applied the principle that finality attaches to an unchallenged judgment or finding in a connected suit tried together, while the other opinion considered the finding in the unappealed suit unnecessary and not binding for the appeal under consideration.

Conclusion: No majority opinion was reached on whether the finding in the unappealed suit could be disturbed in the absence of an appeal.

Final Conclusion: The Bench did not record a conclusive determination on the merits and directed that the matter be placed before another Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: None identifiable with confidence because the Bench was equally divided on the controlling issues.

---