Free Download

Res Judicata Between Co-Defendants

05-04-2025 09:15:41 | APS Judicial Academy

Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. LRs. vs. Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. (2024) SC

Timeline of Key Events

• 1926-27: The Court of Wards, managing the Estate of Raja of Ramgarh, acquired 5.38 acres of land.
• 1937: The Estate of Raja was released from the Court of Wards’ management, returning control to the Raja.
• 1941: The Cantonment Board, Ramgarh, was established; the Raja permitted it to use 2.55 acres of land (excluding the suit land) for six months, extended to 1943.
• 1942: The Raja settled 0.30 acres with Har Narayan Tewari and also delivered its possession to him on payment of rent.
• 1943: A Hukumnama (07.04.1943) confirmed the 1942 settlement of the 0.30 acres in favour of Har Narayan Tewari.
• 1963: The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, mutated the 0.30 acres in Har Narayan Tewari’s name, enhancing rent.
• 1964: Maharani Lakshmi filed a title suit, claiming 5.38 acres (including Tewari’s 0.30 acres) based on a maintenance grant; Har Narayan Tewari (defendant no. 32) and the Cantonment Board (defendant no. 1) were parties.
• 1984: Title Suit was dismissed as Maharani failed to prove her claim; no adjudication on Tewari’s or the Cantonment Board’s rights was made over the 0.30 acres.
• 1989: Har Narayan Tewari filed a suit, seeking title and possession over the 0.30 acres against the Cantonment Board.
• 2000: The trial court decreed Tewari’s suit, confirming his title and possession over the 0.30 acres.
• 2006: The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decree, ruling the suit was barred by Res Judicata due to the 1964 suit.
• 2009: The High Court dismissed Tewari’s second appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
• 2010: Tewari’s legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.
• 2024: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling Res Judicata didn’t apply, confirming the heirs’ title based on the 1942 settlement and 1963 mutation.

The Key Issue!
Was the Plaintiff’s Land Claim Barred by Res Judicata Due to the Earlier Suit Between Co-Defendants in Har Narayan Tewari’s Case?

Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court ruled the suit was not barred by Res Judicata. It restored the trial court’s decree passed in 2000, confirming the appellants’ title and possession over the suit land, which was based on evidence of the 1942 Raja settlement, confirmed by the 1943 Hukumnama, and the 1963 mutation, which the Court deemed sufficient to establish title. 

Precedent Relied on
The Supreme Court cited Govindammal (Dead) by LRs. vs. Vaidiyanathan (2019) to outline the three conditions for res judicata between co-defendants. It held that for Res Judicata to apply between co-defendants, three primary conditions must be fulfilled:

1. There must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants in the earlier suit.
2. The issue must be necessary for granting relief in the earlier suit.
3. The matter must have been finally adjudicated in the earlier suit.

The Court found these conditions were not met in the case at hand.

• There was no conflict between co-defendants (Tewari and the Cantonment Board) in the 1964 suit over the 0.30 acres.
• The earlier suit didn’t settle Tewari’s or the Board’s rights over the 0.30 acres.

• Download: