NDLI: Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Res Judicata- issue relating to plaintiff
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	B a 691 .GANGAPPA GURUPAJJAPPAGUGWAD GULBARGA v. RACHAWWA, WIDOW OF LOCHANAPPA GUGWAD & ORS. October 23, 1970 [G. K. MITTER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] Res Judicata-/ssue l'e/ating to plaintiff's l'ight to "" fou11d agaim·t plaintiff-Other issues l'egarding merits· of .case also decidedagainst him -Decision irrespect of such otherissueswhether operates as res judicata ·--Whether only obiter. Rwanted 10 adoptL ashissonbut did notactuallydo so. In accord- ancewith R's will executedin 1919L inheritedR's propertya'fter his death. 111 1935the appellantherein instituteda suitagainstL andthe trusteesappointedunder R's will.It wasthe appellant'sclaim that the willwas supplementedby a codicil(this referredto a lette~ writtenby R to L sometime afterthe executionof thewill).Under these documents, according to him,L inheritedonly a life-estate. He allegedthat L was Dmismanagingthe propertyand prayedfor aninjunctiondirecting the trusteesto take over management of theproperties.The SubordinateJudge framedfour issuesto theeffect( 1)whetherthe appellantwas entitledto sue, (2) whetherL inheritedonly a life-interest, (3) whether Lbad mis managedthe propertyand ( 4) whetheran injunction as prayedshould be issued to thetrustees.The Subordinate Judge heldthat L hadinherited. nota life-estate but fullownership, and thatthe appellanthad onlya contingentright in thepropertydependingon L dyingwithoutmale issue, Eso that it wasnot possibleto grantto theappellantthe declaraionbe prayedfor. L adopteda sonC in1951,and diedin 1957.After bis. deilth the appellant filed anothersuit against L's widow, C. the· adopted son andthe survivingtrustee. This suit wasalsobased on the claimthat Lbadinheritedonly a life-estateunder R's willandcodicil,The contest inf defendants raised the plea of res /udicaif; basedon thedecision in the suit of 1935. 1be pleaof res judicata was rejectedby thetrialcourtbut r acceptedby theHighCourt. In appealbeforethis Court it was ur4ed on liehalf elf the appellantthat the trialcourtin thesuit ·Of 1935 havmg heldthe suit to be prematureand thusdecidedthe preliminaryissue againstthe appellant, its decisionon theotherissueswas only obiter and couldnot operateas res judicata. G B HELD : Theappealmust fail. Therewas no questior.of thetrial of anypreliminaryissue in thesuit of, 1935 thedecision of whichwouldobviatethe necessity of examining theotherpleas raisedand comingto a findingthereon.The nature of the rightacquiredby L under thewillof thetestator was directly in questionand the subordinatejudge went elaboratelyinto it to takethe viewthat L hadbecomeabsomtelyentitled to thepropertiesle'ft by the testator.The obseNationreferred to intheconcludingportion of the Judgment. of theSubordinateJudge is notto be taken as the decisionon apreliminaryissue so as to renderthe findingon theotherissuesmere obiter lmd surplusage. [698 G-699 A] If the final decision in any matter at issuebetweenthe parties ts based by a courton its decisionson morethan one point-~equent suit. Referring to the first two issues framed in suit of 1935 the High Court held that there was a clear finding in the judg ment !n that suit that the appellant had obtained no interest uncrer the will of Rudrappa and therefore he was not entitled to sue. · Before us learned counsel for the appellant cGntended that in spite of the observations made by the learned Subordinate Judge in the judgment ln the suit of 1935 about Lochanapp'a ri~~ under the will. and the document styled as codicil, the dec1s1on on the first issue went to show that the appellant's suit wa~ premature and a~ such it was not necessary for the Sub ord!nate Judge to go mto the other question and his findings on issues otherthan the first should be treated as obiter. 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. In supportof theabove conte?tion coun.se~ for theappellant relied on thedecisionof the Pnvy Council m Shankarlal v. Hira/a/(1). Theheadnote in thatcaseto which our attention wasdrawnreading. "Court holdingthat suit is notmaintainableby reasonof failureto complywith s. 80-Findings given on merits are obiter a>nd do sotsupportplea of res judicata eitherin favourof or against party" seems to be misleadinginasmuch a~ the judgmentofthe Board doesnot bearout the abovepropositionof Jaw. At best the head note onlyrecordsa findingby an appellateBench of the CalcuttaHigh Courtwhichthe Boardby its ownjudgmentdid notexpresslyreject or uphold. Theappealto the Privy Councilarose out of. a suitfiledby oneMangtulalBagaria for royaltiesdue undera leaseof collieries byone Popat v.~Jji Rajdeoof whichthe saidMangtulalwas appointedmanager by thecourt.The defendantswere the lessees underthe leaseor theirrepresentativesand wererespondentsin theappealto theBoardThere the defenceof thelesseeswas thatthe leasehad beensurrenderedin July1933.The plain· tiffs challengedthe surrenderand alsopleadedthat the point was covered by resjudicata. AmeerAli, J., beforewhomthe suit cameon forhearingon theoriginalside of the CalcuttaHigh Courtframedseveral issues in twogroups.The firstissue. in GroupA relatedto a pleaof res judicata. The secondissue in that .2roup raised a questionwhether there was any defence apartfrom surrender.Group B raisedquestions as· to thefact ~nd validityof theallegedsurrender. The plea of res judicata was b,sed on a judgmentof theSubordinateJudge of Dhanbad whereinthe lesseeshad suedMangtulaland some others for a declarationthat the leasehad beenvalidlysurrenderedin 1933. TheSubordinateJudge held that the suitdid notlie inasmuch as noticehad not bee-n servedon Mangtulalunder s. 80 Civil Procedure Cod~. Hehoweversupported to decide other issues inthesuitincludingone as tothesufficiencyof thesurrender. Anapne.alfrom the decreeof theSubordinateJudge was taken tothe High Courtat Patna but was ·withdrawn againstMangtulal andthe brotherof thelessorand a consentdecree was obtained ag~inst the two widows upholding the surreinder. AmeerAli. J. wentinto the questionof res judicata as a preliminaryissue and expressed the view: )I) Al .R. 1950 P. C. 30. A B c D E F G H . ' I B c D E F G H GANGAPPA v. RACHAWWA (Mitter, !.) 69'1 "that the decisionof theDhanbadCourt had decidedthe sameissue whichhad to be decided in his · owncourtand betweenthe samepersonsand parties." In appealfrom his judgmentthe learnedJudges held that Inasmuch as theSubordinateJudge in the Dhan badsuit hadheldthat the suitdid notlie byreason ofthefailureto complywith s. 30, Civil P .C., he was bQund to dismissthe suitunder Or. 7 R. l 1 of the Codeand the findings of the Courton the meritswere obiter and couldnot supporta pleaof res j11dicata." Theyheld furtherthat AmeerAli, J. haddecidednothing but the issueof res 111dicata. Accordinglythey allowedthe appeal andremandedthe case to the courtof firstinstancefor trial of issuesother than issue l. The judgmentof theJudicialCommitteeshows that before theBoardit was concededon behalfof theappellantthat the appellatecourt was right in the view which it took as to the effect of theDhanbaddecree. Th~ Board proceeded to observe: "Their Lordshipshave no doubtthat the decision intheDhanbadsuit couldnot supporta pleaof 1·es judicata on themerits,either in favourof or against Mangtulal." The Boardrejectedthe contentionof theappellantthat Ameer Ali,J. haddecidednot onlythe issueof res judicata but also thatthe allegedsurrender of the lease was invalid.According totheBoardthe judgment of AmeerAli, J. was to some extent obsecureand thtre ·>ere passages init whichsuggestedthat he thoughtthe surt'ellide1 invalid but "it was clear that .hedidnot purport to decide anything beyondthe issueof res judicata" and he.expresslystated that h.~ was not decidingthe issues iu the secondgroup.Accordinglythe Board saw no· rea!'"•n to differ fromthe view of the appellateJudges that the issues as to ~ur renderwere not decidedby thetrialJudoeand didnot feel inclinedto interferewith the direct( on giv~n ·by theappellate court ri;garding theremandof thetrial of theissuesin the court offirstmstance. On the strengthof thedictumof theappellateBench of the Calcut.t~ Hi~h Court forminga partof theheadnote to the ab~ve dec1s10n ti wa~. contendedbefore us that once the Sub ord~nate Judgeof B11.apur recordeda findingon the first i~sue a~amst the appellant m ~he suitof 1935 his constructionof the w!II ~nd the effect thereot were obiter andthey .. wouldnot be bmdmg o~ t~e appellant in the secondsuit. This was sought to be fort1fiea by theobservations in the concludingportion of 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971 J 2 S.C.R. the judgmentin thesuit of 1935 which we havequotedabove thatthe plaintiffhad at themosta contingentright .and no ves! ed interest. It was arguedthat the learnedSubon;lmate Judge s view that the suit was premature was sufficient to dispose of the casebefore him without his goinginto th.e other questionsand the issues raised. Nodoubtit would be open to· a :.court notto decideall the issueswhichmay ariseon the pleadin~s beforeit if it finds that the plaint on thefaceof it is barred by af).y law. If forinstance theplaintiff's cause of action is againsta G
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Mitter
Neutral Citation	1970 INSC 228
Petitioner	Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga
Respondent	Rachawwa, Widow Of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.
SCR	[1971] 2 S.C.R. 691
Judgement Date	1970-10-23
Case Number	1732

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ramesh Chandra Vs. Shiv Charan Dass and Ors.

Ram Gobinda Dawan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Bhaktabala

Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju Vs. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and Ors.

Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.

Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Mst. Reoti Devi

Mst. Gulab Bai Vs. Manphool Bai

Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr.

Joginder Pal Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and Ors.

M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ramesh Chandra Vs. Shiv Charan Dass and Ors.

Ram Gobinda Dawan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Bhaktabala

Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju Vs. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and Ors.

Satyendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors.

Bhagwan Dayal Vs. Mst. Reoti Devi

Mst. Gulab Bai Vs. Manphool Bai

Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Anr.

Joginder Pal Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and Ors.

M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Gangappa Gurupajjappa Gugwad Gulbarga Vs. Rachawwa, Widow of Lochanappa Gugwad & Ors.