TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 24.8.1979 set aside the order of taking possession and restored possession thereof to Prasony Bai, the 1st Respondent herein, and cancelled the allotment of land to the appellant. Against the said cancellation order dated 24.8.1979 made in favour of the 1st Respondent, an appeal was preferred by the appellant herein before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 28.11.1985 while maintaining the said order of cancellation of allotment observed that : (1) the order was passed behind the back of the party i.e. Parsony Bai; (2) that Tehsildar should not have allotted the land to Abdul Rahman without giving notice to persons in whose name the land already stood; (3) that it was therefore, clear that Tehsildar, Kishangarhbas Harish Chandra had acted in most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to Abdul Rahman; and (4) that for the highhandedness the disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the Tehsildar. The appellant herein questioned the said order of the Board of Revenue before the High Court by way of filing a writ petition which was marked as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2274 of 1985 which was dismissed. A mutation proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving noticed that the previous litigations between the parties also related to the property in suit observed in its order dated 21.12.2000, as under: For the reason that the judicial process be not abused by one or the other party. I deem it proper that the trial court issue required to decide the case at the earliest. Counsel for the petitioner states that the plaintiff would take at least 18 months 2 years for leading his evidence. Before parting with the order, I suo motto (sic for 'suo motu') order that the record of the trial court of suit No.17/99 be summoned immediately through special messenger on or before 4.1.2000 for passing necessary orders in the circular (sic) of the case. At this stage Mr. Khutetia states that he has no instruction from his client. Counsel for both the parties undertakes to inform the counsel for the plaintiff who is conducting the case of plaintiff in the trial court of the next date. Case be listed on 4.1.2001. On or about 6.8.2001, the parties appeared in person before the learned Judge with their respective counsel. It is not disputed that the appellant herein did not question the jurisdiction of the High Court to wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain review application of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Board of Revenue in 1999. The plaintiff is definitely misusing the process of law in the said case by filing and approaching the courts repeatedly on the same issues. The preliminary issue to the effect whether the dispute to the present civil suit in question has already been decided and adjudicated by the court and is barred by the principles of res judicata, is fully answered by various orders and judgment passed by various courts and upheld right upto the High Court and, therefore, the issue stands decided against the plaintiff. It has already been decided by the court that Parsony Bai etc. were legally entitled to retain the land in their possession being the daughter of Mangal Singh. The escheat proceedings illegally initiated against Parsony Bai in regard to property of her father Mangal Singh have been rightly dropped and land restored to her. It was also decided by the courts that the present appellant was not entitled to the part of the land out of the land allotted to him in question. The present plaintiff despite having lost two times on the same issue in regard to same property is still dropping the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, had raised the following contentions in support of this appeal : 1) The High Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw the suit and dispose of civil revision application purported to be in exercise of its power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 2) In any event, the procedure for determining the issues in the suit having not been followed by the High Court, the impugned order must be held to be without jurisdiction; 3) As the revenue court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of status, the principles of res judicata cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. Mr. Sharan submitted that the appellant herein was a tenant of Mangal Singh. According to the learned counsel, although it is not disputed that the said Mangal Singh was the original allottee, as the appellant had been cultivating the land in question, he acquired title by adverse possession. According to the learned counsel, the proceedings for cancellation of allotment could not have been initiated by the 1st Respondent as she was an imposter. In the aforementioned situation, it was urged that the Board of Revenue could not have determined the said question as regards the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te jurisdiction to suo moto withdraw a suit to its file and adjudicate itself all or any of the issues involved therein. The records of the case furthermore clearly demonstrate that the appellant did not raise any question as regards the lack of jurisdiction of the High Court to pass such an order in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, the appellant not only without any demur submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the High Court by taking part in the proceedings, but as noticed hereinbefore, he even made an offer to purchase the property in question. Eventually, despite a report as regards the market value of the land in question has been submitted by the Tehsildar, the appellant appears to have backtracked therefrom. We, therefore, in the aforementioned premise, do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Saran that the High Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw the suit on its own file for its disposal. For the purpose of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure was required to be followed by the High Court. In terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent herein on the ground that she was not the daughter of the aforementioned Mangal Singh. Admittedly, no such contention was raised by the appellant. In the aforementioned situation, the application for cancellation of allotment made in favour of the appellant herein was entertained by the revenue authorities at the instance of the 1st Respondent as it was found that she was interested in the subject-matter of the land in question and she had a right of hearing before an order of allotment could be passed in favour of the appellant. Furthermore, the right of the 1st Respondent to get back the possession of the land as also to get her name mutated in relation thereto, has been upheld by the Board of Revenue on two occasions. Even the appellant's prayer for review of the order of the Board of Revenue was dismissed. It may be true that only because the property in dispute had been mutated in the name of one of the parties to the suit, the same would not be conclusive and binding between the parties. But although by reason of entry in the record of right one does not derive any title in relation to the property in dispute, as has been held in State of U.P. v. Amar Singh O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of the rights of the parties in the mutation proceedings. . In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, the appellant must be held to have taken recourse to abuse of process of court underlying the principle that the litigation should be allowed to attain finality in public interest. Although the concept of issues estoppel or estoppel by records are distinct and separate from the concept of abuse of process in public interest, the court may refuse the plaintiff from pursuing his remedy in a court of law. See Johnson v. Gore Wood Co. [(2002) 2 AC 1]. In this case, we are also satisfied that having regard to the fact that the appellant himself was the tenant of Mangal Singh, he could not have raised the plea of adverse possession. As a tenant he could not have questioned the title of Mangal Singh. The very fact that escheat proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State also points out that the State proceeded on the premise that Mangal Singh had the right title in relation to the land in question and as he died intestate without leaving behind him any legal heir/representative, the same vested in the State. The appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, was all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
