TMI Blog1927 (2) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the auction-sale there was no mention of a purchase of land or share in the shamlat khata. They also maintained that the defendants in 1914 had sued them as the lambardars for a share of profits in the shamlat khata in dispute and that in that case the revenue Court had decided against the defendants and that this decision of the revenue Court operated as res judicata in the present case. A third reason for their claim being allowed was that they had been in adverse possession of the land in suit for 12 years as against the defendants, if the latter could be held to have acquired any title by the auction-sale of 1900. 2. The trial Court, namely, the Munsif of Muttra, decided: (1) that the defendants had acquired a title in the shamlat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to determine the question of title on the ground that the defendants were not recorded as co-sharers. In other words, it decided the question of title under Clause (3), Section 199, Tenancy Act. Now it is immaterial whether that Court was right in holding that the fact of the present defendants being recorded as co-sharers in the principal pattis amounted to their being recorded as co-sharers for the purpose of land in the shamlat patti or not. The Court was entitled to interpret the village papers and to take the view that the defendants were not recorded co-sharers. In pursuance of this view, it was entitled to determine the question of title under Section 199(3), Tenancy Act. No appeal was filed against its decision. Consequently, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd this clearly amounts to a declaration of the title of the auction-purchaser in the shamlat land The decision, therefore, contained in the order quoted amounts to a decision under Section 111(1)(c). It, therefore, had the effect of a decree of a civil Court in virtue of Section 112. The reference in the order to a remedy in the civil Court must mean by way of appeal. There was no appeal against this decision and it has become final. It, therefore, operates as res judicata against the plaintiffs in the same way as the decree in the Section 164 case operated against the defendants. 6. The situation is, therefore, that we have two decrees operating as res judicata; one as against the plaintiffs and one as against the defendants. We are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
