TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hant Mani Ram Swami, admittedly was the holder of the said Gaddi. First respondent claimed himself to be the `Pota Chela' of the said Mahant Mani Ram Swami. 4. Disputes and differences between the parties having arisen as regards succession and management of the Gaddi, first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak . It was registered as Suit No. 295/2 of 1964. Another suit was filed by Mahant Mani Ram Sadhu Dadu Panthi which was marked as Suit No. 46 of 1967. The said suits were filed for grant of permanent injunction. 5. Appellant has claimed its entitlement to the management of the said Gaddi under a Will purported to have been executed by Mahant Mani Ram Swami. The main controversy between the parties, therefore, was which party was entitled to manage the Gaddi at Kalanaur of the said Trust. The matters relating to management of another Gaddi situated at another place, i.e., Makhora, however, is not in dispute. 6. The learned trial judge, having regard to the pleadings of the parties inter alia, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the Chela of Lahar Dass and Pota Chela of Mahant Mani Ram? 2. Whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will because his interest in the properties was limited by the period of tenure of the office of Mahant of the Gaddi. However, the finding of the trial court on issue No. 4 was reversed. 8. A second appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court which was registered as Regular Second Appeal No. 800 of 1973. The High Court allowed the purported register of the `Bhaik' to be produced as additional evidence. It entered into the merit of the matter and held as under: The oral evidence produced by the plaintiff to prove this fact in the Trial Court, was discussed by the lower Appellate Court as well, but as observed earlier, the lower Appellate Court did not believe those witnesses because all of them had stated that such a writing was made in the register when the plaintiff was appointed as Mahant and that writing was attested by some of the members of the Bhaik, yet the same was not produced in the Trial Court. Thus their testimony was never disbelieved as such. Because of the non-production of the writing Exhibit PW 14/A the finding was given against the plaintiff by the two Courts below. Since this Court allowed the additional evidence to be produced in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned judgment has allowed the said appeal holding: Admittedly, the previous suit was suit for injunction. In the said suit finding was returned by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ownership and possession and, thus, the suit for injunction was dismissed. Such finding was affirmed in appeal as well. This Court in second appeal reversed the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court after admitting additional evidence and held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In the said circumstance, above said order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was passed whereby judgment and decree passed by the High Court was set aside and liberty was given to the plaintiff to file a suit for possession. A perusal of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court shows that the finding that plaintiff was not in possession in a suit for injunction recorded by this Court was set aside and, therefore, it was clarified that the judgment of the Court will not come in the way of the plaintiff to file a suit for possession. Meaning thereby in a suit for possession, the plaintiff could establish his title. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the appellant with regard thereto was found favour with the first appellate court. On the aforementioned backdrop the implication of the observations of this Court must be noticed and considered. 18. The order of this Court is in four parts, i.e. - i) The High Court could not have reversed the finding of the first appellate court that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of the suit. ii) In view of the said finding a decree for injunction for which the suit was filed could not have been granted. iii) The judgment and decree of the first appellate court shall be restored after setting aside the judgment and decree of the High Court. iv) The said judgment would not come in the way of the plaintiff/respondent in filing a suit for possession, if he so is so advised. 19. The judgment of a court, it is trite, should not be interpreted as a statute. The meaning of the words used in a judgment must be found out on the backdrop of the fact of each case. The Court while passing a judgment cannot take away the right of the successful party indirectly which it cannot do directly. An observation made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... XXIX of 1841, which refers only to steps in procedure necessary to enable a cause to be prepared for hearing on its merits; the dismissal of a suit for want of evidence ought not to be on default, but on the merits. This, then, was clearly the state of the law in 1857, when the Judge of Rajshahe dismissed the suit for want of evidence , and we cannot allow any words of the Judge to override the law, and give to parties indulgencies which the law of procedure does not sanction." "It cannot for a moment be argued that, as the law stood in 1857, a Plaintiff was at liberty to claim a non-suit if, after the issues were recorded, be neglected to supply evidence in support of his case, and we are of opinion that the law and practice of the Courts there was to act upon the maxim `De non aparentibus et non existentibus eadum est ratio' (a); and if evidence was wanting, to dismiss the claim for want of proof. Such order is in reality a decision on the merits, just as much as if Plaintiff had produced evidence which the Court considered inadequate as proof, and dismissed it upon that ground. 25. The Privy Council In Fateh Singh and Ors. v. Jagannath Baksh Singh and Anr. observed: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08SC171 , when this Court observed: 21. If the respondent intended to claim damages and/or mesne profit, in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code itself, he could have done so, but he chose not to do so. For one reason or the other, he, therefore, had full knowledge about his right. Having omitted to make any claim for damages, in our opinion, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to get the same indirectly. 22. Law in this behalf is absolutely clear. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. 27. The question which was posed by the Privy Council was: Be that, however, as it may, the first question is, whether the High Court was right in holding that, notwithstanding the reservation contained in the decree dismissing the suit of 1856, the question was to be treated as res judicata. The Court noticed that at that point there was no authority which sanctioned the exercise by the Country Courts of India of that power which Courts of Equity in that Country occasionally exercise, of dismissing a suit with liberty to the plaintiff to bring a fresh suit for the same matter. 28. Having noticed the effect of a stray observation made by a superior co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssertion of a cause of action". This doctrine is based on two theories: (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is necessary for the courts to recognise that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative a....