9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the previous civil suit filed by plaintiff No. 2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under the Bombay Public Trusts Act: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to a previous civil suit's decision. The appellant contends that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to decide on matters regarding the trusteeship and ownership of the trust property. Section 79 of the Act stipulates that questions about the existence of a trust, whether it's a public trust, or if a particular property is trust property, must be decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner. The findings of these authorities are final and conclusive unless overturned by a higher court. Therefore, the Civil Court's decision in the previous suit, which addressed these issues, was without jurisdiction and thus void. 2. Incidental Findings and Res Judicata: The appellant argues that any incidental findings by the Civil Court in the previous suit cannot form the basis for res judicata. The previous suit was dismissed on technical grounds due to the non-production of necessary certificates from the Charity Commissioner, meaning there was no decision on the merits. The principle of res judicata applies only when a matter has been heard and finally decided on its merits. The Supreme Court in Pragdasji v. Ishwarlalbhai and Gangabai v. Chhabubai has held that findings incidental to the main issue do not constitute res judicata. 3. Previous Suit Dismissal on Technical Grounds: The previous suit was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to produce necessary certificates, a technical ground. The principle of res judicata does not apply if the previous suit was not decided on its merits. The court cited several cases, including Bai Shakri v. Bapusinghji Takhatsinhji and Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, to support this view. The dismissal of a suit on technical grounds does not prevent a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. 4. Non-Binding Nature of Negligent Trustee Decisions: Although not necessary to decide in this case, the court noted the principle that decisions against trustees due to their gross negligence in defending a suit are not binding on subsequent trustees. This principle, discussed in Subramania v. Vaithilinga, suggests that negligent defense by trustees does not preclude future suits by new trustees. 5. Remand to District Court: Since the suit was dismissed solely on the ground of res judicata and other issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs, the court remanded the matter to the District Court. The District Court is directed to pass an appropriate decree after considering the findings of the trial court and the High Court on the issue of res judicata. Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed, and the judgment and decree by the District Judge, Jamnagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 76/75, are set aside. The District Court is instructed to issue a new decree considering the trial court's findings and this court's decision on res judicata within four months of receiving the writ. There will be no order regarding costs throughout the proceedings.
|
