State of M.P and Another vs Smt. Suman Jain and Others

I.A. No. 8465/2010 for dismissal of the appeal.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2008 passed by the Ist. Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2006 by which the suit filed by the respondents was decreed on the ground that the earlier Suit No. 64-A/2000 was subject-matter of Appeal No. 24-A/2002, before the 6th Additional District Judge, Sagar, who vide the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2003 decreed the suit and the plaintiffs being successor in interest were entitled for the reliefs.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/ 2002, a second appeal was preferred before this Court which was registered as S.A. No. 1200/2006 but it was dismissed as abated on 11.8.2008 as per order Annexure Ex.P/35 and the application filed by the State under Order 22 rule 9 read with Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C was also dismissed by this Court. It is submitted that as the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/2002 has attained finality, this appeal has no merit and may be dismissed.

Though the learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the aforesaid contention, but considering the fact that the present suit has been decreed on the ground that in earlier suit, in Appeal no. 24-A/2002, the suit was decreed, their predecessor was declared as owner of the property against the State and such order has attained finality. Now in view of the dismissal of the second appeal, no further order is required as the judgment and decree passed in Appeal No. 24-A/2002 dated 11.3.2003 is having the effect of res judicata between the parties. This appeal also deserves to be dismissed.

In this appeal, the point involved is that whether the predecessor of plaintiffs namely, Mannu Lal was declared as owner of the disputed house in civil suit no. 64-A /2000, and the aforesaid judgment and decree is binding on the appellants. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have purchased the property from late Mannu Lal by registered sale-deed dated 18.3.2005 and acquired right and possession from Mannu Lal. In earlier round of litigation, Mannu Lal was declared owner of the suit property and his suit was decreed.

We have heard the parties on the aforesaid contention and perused the record. From the perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, we find that only issue was in respect of decree of earlier suit which was decided in favour of the predecessor of plaintiff/respondents. Issue no. 2 relates to the effect that the present plaintiff-respondents have purchased the property on 18.3.2005 from Mannu lal, who was the plaintiff in earlier suit and on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit, the present suit has been decreed. The second appeal against the judgment and decree passed in Appeal No. 24-A/2002 has been dismissed by this Court and as per the statement made by the parties, no SLP has been preferred. We find that there is no merit in this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly.