Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, arose from two connected proceedings: Writ Petition No.1250 of 2018 and Appeal from Order No.57 of 2017 with Civil Application No.14253 of 2017, filed by Vimalbai Gangaram Shingade and Mathurabai Baburao Raut, who were original defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No.287 of 1991. The respondents included the original plaintiffs Bhagirathbai Rakhmaji Wayse and others, original defendant No.3, and interveners who were added as respondents in the first appeal. The litigation concerned land Gut No.105, admeasuring 7 acres 2 R, situated at Adhala, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. The original plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction, claiming title through Rakhamaji Baburao Patil, while the defendants claimed through Parubai. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendants were owners and that the suit was barred by res judicata due to the finality of the decree in earlier RCS No.10 of 1970. Plaintiffs then filed Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2012. During its pendency, interveners claiming an independent right through Sahebrao filed application Exhibit-30 for joinder; the first appellate court allowed the application on 31/08/2017, adding them as respondent Nos.4 to 9. Subsequently, by judgment dated 06/10/2017, the first appellate court set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh decision, permitting the interveners to file written statements. The first appellate court had framed seven points for determination but marked points 1 to 5 as 'redundant' without deciding them on merits, solely on the ground that the interveners needed to be heard. The High Court noted the long history of litigation, including the decree in RCS No.10 of 1970 which had attained finality through dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1972 and Second Appeal No.403 of 1975. The court also observed that the interveners' claim of ownership was entirely different from the plaintiffs' claim, and that the original suit was only between plaintiffs and defendants. The extracted judgment text ends before the final order, so the ultimate decision of the High Court on the writ petition and appeal from order is not available in the provided portion.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Addition of Parties in Appeal - First appellate court allowed interveners claiming independent right over suit property to be added as respondents despite competing claims through different predecessors - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The interveners, respondent Nos.7-12, claimed right through Sahebrao based on alleged sale by Parubai, whereas original plaintiffs claimed through Rakhamaji; the first appellate court permitted their joinder below Exhibit-30 on 31/08/2017, but the High Court observed the interveners' claim was entirely different from plaintiffs' claim and the original suit was between plaintiffs and defendants only (Paras 1-9). B) Civil Procedure - Remand by First Appellate Court - Appellate court set aside trial court decree and remanded without deciding points on merit, marking all issues 'redundant' - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The first appellate court framed seven points but did not answer points 1-5 and only found that appeal should be allowed and matter remanded on ground that interveners were not heard; the High Court observed the appellate court failed to consider the long history of litigation and finality of earlier decree in RCS No.10 of 1970 (Paras 7-9). C) Res Judicata - Finality of Earlier Decree - Trial court held suit barred by res judicata based on earlier decree in RCS No.10 of 1970 which attained finality through dismissal of appeal and second appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' suit holding defendants were owners and plaintiffs failed to prove title; earlier RCS No.10 of 1970 was decreed in favour of defendants, appeal RCA No.33 of 1972 and Second Appeal No.403 of 1975 were dismissed, and in a compromise in RCS No.52 of 1961, plaintiffs' predecessor accepted Parubai's possession (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court erred in allowing intervention and remanding the suit without deciding the appeal on merits despite earlier decree attaining finality.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text provided ends before final order).
Law Points
- Addition of parties in appeal
- remand without deciding merits
- res judicata
- finality of decree
- independent claim of interveners
- title dispute through different predecessors
