Mahboob Sahab V/s Syed Ismail & Ors, (1995) 3 SCC 693

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Introduction:

The doctrine of Resjudicata is defined under section 11 as

“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

The doctrine of Res Judicata means the matter which is already judged, that means no court have the authority or power to try the fresh suit for the already settled matters of same title and between same parties.

The decree in the prior suit would serve as res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendant when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in accordance with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If the plaintiff requires to include co- defendants and co- plaintiffs out of conflict of interest in the suit to get relief, then the Co-defendants and Co- plaintiffs are bound by the decree. If the relief to the plaintiff doesn’t include decision between the co- defendants, then it will not be bound by them.

Facts:

Syed Ismail and Ibrahim are sons of Maqdoom, panchamle filed a suit against their parents and appellant pleading for possession of the lands and profits from the appellants. The averments made to support their claim are that their father executed a gift deed bequeathing 15 acres 38 gunthas out of 31 acres 36 gunthas in survey No. 781 of Aland village, jointly in their favour, their mother smt chandi who is the third defendant had orally gifted over her share to Syed Ismail in April at time of his marriage.

Their Father who is second defendant, while cultivating their lands on their behalf had colluded with patwari while farming the lands on their behalf and had signed sale deed Ex-D-1 in the appellant's favour.

The sons came to know about this, they filed a suit against their father that he had no right, title and interest to alienate the lands. And they claimed that the sales I favour of appellant would be invalid, in operative and doesn’t bind them. On the other hand the appellant pleaded that maqdoom had entered into an agreement of sale under Ex.D-22 on April 12, 1961 to sell 12 acres of land for valuable consideration and executed the sale deed ExD-1 on May 12, 1961 to discharge antecedent debts.

Similarly agreement of sales of 4 acres of land for 2,500 /- was executed and the appellant had acquired permission from the assistant of commissioner for sale, but the Maqdoom and his wife rejected he filed a suit of OS No. 4/1 of 1966 which was decreed on the contest and the sale deed Ex- D-3 was executed .

None of the gifts that their parents gave were intended exclusively to swindle the appellant. The executability of a previous decree obtained by a different creditor was contested in OS No. 3/1/1951, which was filed by one Ismail on the basis of a possessory mortgage. By judgement and decree dated September 24, 1951, the Court held that Maqdoom had jointly gifted the lands to the respondents and their mother by a registered gift deed.

The defendant asserts that the doctrine of res judicata applies to the plaintiff because the plaintiff's father was also a defendant in the lawsuits where his title to the subject property was established.

Issues:

1. Whether the matter between the co- defendants barred by Res Judicata?

2 Whether the High Court was correct to rule that the decree barred by resjudicata?

Ratio:

The requirement to give court rulings finality is the foundation of the res judicata principle. According to this clause, a res in judicata cannot be decided upon again. It mostly relates to cases that have already been litigated and those that will be. Extreme care and caution must be used when applying the res judicata theory to co-defendants. Due to the fact that fraud is an extrinsic collateral act, it impacts even the most serious court procedures. In this case Supreme Court visited the section 11 to determine whether the co-defendants are barred by resjudicata and the court laid following guidelines and held that co – defendants in this case are not barred by resjudicata as the guidelines are not met

Judgement:

The trial court decided to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the OS No. 3/1/1951 decree did not serve as res judicata. The Additional Civil Judge in Gulbarga overturned the judgement and dismissed the case in R.A. No. 21 1/1970 on the grounds that Maqdoom had alienated the property as the owner. In revenue records, his name remained the owner up until the point of his acquisition, when it was changed to the appellants' name. Neither the original nor the certified copy of the gift deed that Maqdoom is said to have executed was submitted. A letter from the Sub-Registrar indicating its loss in an appeal cannot be used as proof that the donation was executed.

When the father is still alive, the mother isn't allowed to manage the property. As neither acceptance of the gift nor handover of possession of the lands by the father or mother was proven, the mother's oral gift to the respondents was untrue. When Smt. Chandi gave her undivided portion to the first respondent, neither it was proven that the father or anyone else had been acting as guardian, nor was there any evidence of taking possession from the wife pursuant to the oral gift deed. As a result, the stated gifts were neither established nor legally legitimate.

The appellant court states that suit OS No. 3/1/1951 is not barred by resjudicata and sustained the decision of the trail court.

The high court without further making any findings directly overruled and reversed the appellant court decision. And stated that OS No.3/1/1951 is barred by resjudicata as the parents and the respondents are co-defendants in that particular suit and upheld the decision of the trial court. Here the high court made wrong approach towards the case as it didn’t look into the proper evidences like not examining the witness and identifying the attestations. The appellant court questioned on the concept of nor presenting the registered gift deed.

Interpretation:

As per section 147 of the principles of the Muslim law as mentioned in mulla, writing is not an important aspect for the validity of the gift deed. Section 149 says that there are 3 essentials for the validity of the gift 1. Declaration of gift by the donor 2. Acceptance of the gift includes both expressed and implied, by or on behalf of the done. 3 Delivery of the possession.

As per Mohammadan law though the writing and registration is mandatory, to make the gift complete there should be declaration and acceptance as well from the donor and done, so that gift become valid.

A guardian can take care of the minor’s property. Minor is a person who has not completed his age of 18 years as per the Guardian and wards act 1890. Father can also be a guardian of the property of a minor but there is no indication and evidence to show that father acted as a guardian. And also section 362 of the act limits the power of the guardian on the minor property which includes mortgage as well. So there is no proof for the acceptance of the oral gifts made. The 1/3rd undivided share of their mother was not a subject matter in OS No.3/1/1951. Father continued to have the possession and the name on the revenue records as an owner until it was mutated to the appellant. And also the doctrine of estoppel comes into picture, as Ibrahim attested EX.D-1 which conveyed that as his father as the owner of the land. As per the situation it is completely against the interest of the Ibrahim but he himself contested in executing the deed.

Supreme Court’s view:

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the findings in the trial court became final in the OS No. 3/1/1951 does not operate as a resjudicata became final. The judgment of high court is set aside and the appellant court’s decision stood in deciding in this case and the consequence suit on respondent 1& 2 stands dismissed with costs.

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If the plaintiff requires to include co- defendants and co- plaintiffs out of conflict of interest in the suit to get relief, then the Co-defendants and Co- plaintiffs are bound by the decree. If the relief to the plaintiff doesn’t include decision between the co- defendants, then it will not be bound by them

The Supreme Court stated few guidelines on res judicata applicability co-defendant as follows:

• There must be a conflict of interest between defendants concerned
• It must be necessary to decide the conflict to give relief to plaintiff
• The question between the defendants must have been finally decided
• Co – defendants were necessary and proper parties and there is conflict.

So, the court stated there is no, resjudicata applicability in this case.

Analysis:

The court stated that if the plaintiff requires to include co- defendants and co- plaintiffs out of conflict of interest in the suit to get relief, then the Co-defendants and Co- plaintiffs are bound by the decree. If the relief to the plaintiff doesn’t include decision between the co- defendants, then it will not be bound by them.

In the case of Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali[1], the question of whether the former court ruling on the title of the subject property would serve as res judicata between the parties who were co-plaintiffs in the earlier lawsuit, was at issue.

The SC determined that its decision would serve as res judicata if the following four criteria were met: A conflict of interest between the parties is required. In order to provide relief and resolve the case's issue, the conflict must be resolved. That such a conflict exists has been established without doubt. In the prior lawsuit, the co-defendants were required or appropriate parties. The SC ruled that the res judicata principle must be in effect because all four requirements were met in this particular case.

In the case of SM. Sadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali, AIR 1943 PC 115, the Privy Council was asked to consider whether the rule of res judicata applies to co-defendants.

The facts of the case are as follows: SM. Sadat Ali Khan, Mirza Wiquar Ali, and two others were co-defendants in a suit regarding the ownership of certain land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership of the land. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and declared the plaintiff as the owner of the land. SM. Sadat Ali Khan and the other co-defendants then filed a separate suit to establish their ownership of the land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds of res judicata, as the issues in the second suit were the same as those in the first suit, which had already been decided against the co-defendants.

The co-defendants appealed the decision, arguing that the rule of res judicata did not apply to them as they were not parties to the previous suit. The Privy Council rejected this argument and upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the rule of res judicata applies not only to parties to the previous suit, but also to those who were co-defendants in that suit. The court reasoned that the co-defendants had ample opportunity to contest the plaintiff's claim in the first suit and that it would be unjust to allow them to re-litigate the same issues in a separate suit.

Res judicata is a legal doctrine that forbids the same parties from bringing the same dispute before a court of competent jurisdiction once it has previously been decided. In other words, after a court has issued a final ruling on a specific matter, the parties concerned cannot re-present the case to the court.

Depending on the circumstances, the res judicata concept may or may not apply to co-defendants in a court proceeding. A definitive ruling against one co-defendant may, in some circumstances, preclude the other co-defendants from further prosecution. This means that the other co-defendants may not raise the same argument at a later trial if a court has previously rendered a final judgement against one co-defendant.

Co-defendants may not always be covered by the res judicata rule, nevertheless. The rule of res judicata might not be applicable, for instance, if each co-defendant's difficulties are distinct and unrelated.

Res judicata's applicability to co-defendants will ultimately be determined by the case's particular facts and circumstances, as well as by the laws and regulations of the country in which the case is being heard. In this case the guidelines didn’t meet, so resjudicata is not applicable on the co defendants.

  [1] Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali, 1974 (2) SCC 151.