Whether previous judgments are admissible in evidence?

In the case of “Kunhayammedand others v/s. State of Kerala and another” (supra), it has been held that in spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge. The expression “jeopardy” does not mean “not binding” or “not final” or “not effective”. That expression relates to danger of suffering harm or loss. As contended by Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel, Judgment in jeopardy does not disturb its finality. Since no stay or suspension of the operation or execution of the judgment and award in L. A. Case No. 19/1989 or of the judgment in First Appeal No. 116/ 1997 and in LPA No. 15/ 2000 has been granted by the Apex Court, the same continues to be effective and binding as between the parties. The doctrine of merger is based on the principle that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order in respect of the same subject matter and at the same time. In so far as Sanyogita Rane group is concerned, they were parties to that L. A. Case No 19/89. In so far as Morajkar group is concerned, they had tried to intervene in the same proceedings when they were pending in the form of LPA No.15/2000, by filing an application for impleading them as parties. However, Morajkar group withdrew the said Civil Application No. 444/2006 on 09/06/2009. Under section 40 of the Evidence Act, previous judgments are admissible in support of a plea of res judicata in civil cases. If not res judicata, the principles analogous to that are applicable. In any case, the judgment in First Appeal No. 116/1997 was binding on the Reference Court wherein it was held that the land bearing survey no. 106 of Carapur village belongs to Manoramabai Rauji Rane Group. The Reference Court was therefore bound to rely upon the said findings and decide the subsequent case on the basis of the same findings and this is what has been done by the Reference Court. The judgment in the LPA No. 15/2000, being of Division Bench of this Court, is binding on me. In this judgment, it has been upheld that land bearing survey No. 106 of Carapur village belongs to Manoramabai Rauji Rane Group. It is not known as to how long the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court would take for its final disposal. There is no point in keeping the present appeal pending till then. If the judgments are set aside in the said Special Leave Petition, Sanyogita Rane Group can take recourse to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Mrs. Sanyogita Rane and Others Vs. Mrs. Manoramabai Rauji Rane (Since deceased) and Others

Judge : U.V. BAKRE

Decided On : May-11-2012

Case Number : First Appeal No. 105 of 2010 Alongwith Cross-Objection No. 11 of 2010

Citation;2013(7) ALLMR 633,2013(2) ABR 816

1. The above Appeal and Cross-Objection, which emanate from the Judgment and Award dated 22/02/2000, passed by the Additional District Judge at Mapusa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1991, are being disposed of, finally, at the admission stage, as was already notified to the parties, by previous orders of this Court.

2. Facts giving rise to the Appeal/Cross-Objection, in short, may be stated as under:

Land admeasuring 787 square metres from Survey No. 106(part) of Carapur village was acquired for construction of “300m3 Ground Level Reservoir and Pump House” at Carapur in Bicholim Taluka. By Award dated 19/05/1989, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded a sum of Rs. 20,737/- as compensation for the said acquired land. However, there was dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Hence, the L.A.O. made reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short) which gave rise to the said L. A. Case No. 12 of 1991.

3. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as Sanyogita Rane group. The respondents no. 1(i), 1(ii), 2(i), 2(ii), 4(i), 4(ii), 7(i), and 7(ii)(a) to (d) of the Appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as the members of Manoramabai Rane group. The respondents no. 10 to 18 of the Appeal (Crossobjectioners) shall hereinafter be referred to as Morajkar group.

4. The members of Morajkar group, filed their Statement of Claim, dated 15/6/1995, which is at Exhibit 8, before the Reference Court, in which they stated as follows:

The acquired land is a part of a bigger property known as “Kulan” bearing survey no. 106 of village Carapur. The entire property is wrongly surveyed in the name of Smt Manoramabai Raoji Rane. The said property originally belongs to the ancestors of the said Morajkar group namely Bhicaji Arjun Naik Moraskar and Antulo Naik Moraskar. The said Bhicaji Arjun Naik Moraskar had 2/3rd share in the said property and Antulo Naik Moraskar had 1/3rd share. Somewhere in the year 1938, the 2/3rd share belonging to the said Bhicaji Arjun Naik Moraskar was purchased by the Rane Family and the remaining 1/3rd share belonging to the said Antulo Naik Moraskar continued to be owned and possessed by the members of Morajkar group as they are legal heirs of the said Antulo. The said property was originally registered under no. 16.771 in the name of ancestors of the members of Morajkar group namely Jaidev Narayan Naik and Radhabai Naik. The 2/3rd share, purchased by Rane family in the public auction, bears a separate registration no. 5181, which corresponds to the share of Bhicaji Arjun Naik Moraskar. Therefore, the claim of Smt Manoramabai Rane be restricted to the extent of 2/3rd in the acquired land and remaining 1/3rd share should be adjudicated in the name of the Morajkar group.

5. SanyogitaRane group, in their Statement of Claim, dated 9/9/1999, which is at Exhibit 13, stated as follows:

There is a plot of land named “Culona” bearing survey no. 106 of Carapur village of Bicholim Taluka, out of which 2/3rd share belonged to Zaidev Zaitoji Raje Sardessai, who died in the year 1956. This share was acquired by him somewhere in the year 1938 in public auction and since then he was in exclusive possession of the same till his death. There were inventory proceedings taken out, in the year 1957, on the death of said Zaidev Zaitoji and 1/3rd of 2/3rd share of Zaidev in the said property “Culona” alongwith other properties was allotted to late Zaiba Rane Sardessai; 1/3rd of 2/3rd share was allotted to Tarabai Saheb Gaikwad and remaining 1/3rd of 2/3rd share was allotted to Kamalbai Gujar, in equal shares. Neither Tarabai Saheb Gaikwad nor Kamlabai Gujar have taken a share of any of their ancestral property in Goa ever since they were married and settled in Gwalior, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. After the death of Zaidev Zaitoji Rane, the third inheritor, Zaiba Satroji Rane has been in exclusive possession of the said property till the date of his death i.e. till 8/4/1987. Zaiba Satroji Rane left behind his wife Mrs. Sanyogita Rane Sardessai, two sons i.e. Jitendra Rane Sardessai and Sanjay Rane Sardessai and daughter Mrs. Jyoti Botelho as his sole heirs. Mr. Sanjay Rane holds the power of attorney for the other heirs of Zaiba. Government has acquired 787 square metres of land from this plot 'Culona” bearing survey no. 106 of Carapur village. Hence, 2/3rd share of compensation belongs to the heirs of late Zaiba Satroji which be handed over to Mr. Sanjay Rane.

6. The learned Advocate, on behalf of Manoramabai Rane group, filed applications dated 26/04/1999 and 30/11/1999, which are at Exhibits 11 and 15 respectively. In these applications, it was stated as follows :

In L. A. Case no. 19 of 1989, Manoramabai Rane was respondent no. 2 and after her death, the Vakalatnama on behalf of her eldest son Shri Fatehsingh Rauji Rane was filed as he was appointed 'Cabeca de Casal' in the Inventory Proceedings after the death of Manoramabai. The dispute in the said L. A. Case No. 19/1989 pertained to the land bearing survey no. 106 of village Karapur, Bicholim Taluka, which has been finally disposed of by the District Court on 12th June, 1995. The issues before the District Judge in the said L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989 were whether the applicants (Sanjay Rane and others) prove that the suit plot which is part of survey no. 106 belongs to them; or whether the respondent no. 1 (Smt Saibai S. Dubaxi) proves that the suit plot which is part of survey no. 106 belongs to her; or whether the respondent no. 2 (Smt. Manoramabai Rane) proves that the suit plot which is part of survey no. 106 belongs to her. On the basis of the said issues, and upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, Judgment dated 12th June, 1995 came to be passed in the said L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989 in which the issue has been answered in favour of Smt. Manoramabai Rane. Against the said Judgment and Order, the parties namely Sanjay Z. Rane, Sanyogita Z. Rane, Jitendra Z. Rane and Jyoti Botelho had filed an Appeal before the High Court bearing First Appeal no. 116 of 1997 which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Justice S.S. Nijjar on 12th October, 1997. In view of the above, it is proved that as far as the property bearing survey no. 106 is concerned, Manoramabai Rane group have the right whereas the other parties do not have any right and therefore the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. should be paid to Manoramabai Rane group.

7. Learned Reference Court framed the following issues:

1. Who is entitled for compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer?2. What relief?

3. What order?

8. Upon consideration of the material on record, Reference Court has held that the acquired land admeasuring 787 square metres is of a very big property bearing survey no. 106 situated in village Carapur and in similar L. A. Case no. 19 of 1989, another part of survey no. 106 admeasuring 21450 square metres was acquired by the State Government and in the said case, the issue of ownership of survey no. 106 has been answered in favour of Manoramabai Rane group and aggrieved by that, the First Appeal no. 116 of 1997 was filed by Sanyogita Rane group before the High Court, wherein the said aspect was considered and the appeal was dismissed. The Reference Court therefore held that the property bearing survey no. 106 belongs to Manoramabai Rane group. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the case of “Ramprakash Vs. Charan Kaur and another” (AIR 1997 SC 3760), wherein, inter alia it has been observed that:

“it can safely be said that where two connected suits have been tried together and the findings recorded in one of the suits have become final in absence of an appeal, the appeal preferred against the findings recorded in the other suit would definitely be barred by the principles of res judicata. This is the ratio of the above cited case law decided by the Apex Court of the country. Thus, there is absolutely no necessity to go into other aspects of the appeal, especially when on factual side, as detailed above, the decree, not appealed against by the present Appellant, passed by the First Appellate Court, has become final between the parties, which has created a legal bar for the maintainability of the present appeal whereby the decree passed in the other suit has been assailed.”

Consequently, the Reference Court ordered that entire compensation awarded by the L.A.O. along with the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to Manoramabai Rane group.

9. SanyogitaRane group and Morajkar group, both, aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award, have filed this appeal and cross-objection respectively.

10. Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned advocate, argued on behalf of Sanyogita Rane group. Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Advocate, argued on behalf of Manoramabai Rane group whereas Mr. J. F. Melo, learned Advocate, made submissions on behalf of Morajkar group.

11. ShriRamani, learned advocate for Sanyogita Rane group, submitted that against the Judgment and Award dated 12/6/1995, in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989, the First Appeal No. 116 of 1997 was filed before this High Court and the same was dismissed and against the judgment dated 12/10/1999 of this High Court in First Appeal No. 116/1999, Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2000 was filed and the same was also dismissed by Judgment dated 22/06/2009. Shri R. G. Ramani has argued that against the said judgment in LPA, a Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is still pending. He pointed out that the impugned Judgment and Award has been passed on 22/2/2000, which is during the pendency of the LPA No. 15/2000 which was filed on 2/12/1999 and disposed of firstly on 18/9/2002 and after remand, on 22/06/2009. He has relied upon “Kunhayammedand others v/s. State of Kerala and another” [AIR 2000 SC 2587(1)], wherein it has been held thus:

“In spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge.”

12. Therefore, according to learned counsel for Sanyogita Rane group, the Judgment and Award in L. A. Case No. 19/1989 might have become effective and binding between the parties to that case, since no stay or suspension of the operation or execution of the said Judgment has been passed. According to him, therefore, Manoramabai Rane group can file execution proceedings and succeed to get the compensation awarded for the acquired land which was subject matter of that case. He, however, contended that the said Judgment and Award in L. A. Case No.19/1989, being under challenge and in jeopardy, the issue decided therein cannot be said to be finally decided. He argued that since the issue of ownership is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of res judicata under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code or principles analogues to the same, are not applicable. He submitted that the ratio in the case of “Ramprakash”(supra) has been wrongly applied by the Reference Court.

13. Learned Counsel for Sanyogita Rane group, invited my attention to Section 53 of The Act which provides that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the Act. He therefore contended that under Section 30, the Reference Court had to decide the reference as per the procedure prescribed by Civil Procedure Code. According to him, each of the parties had to file Written Statement so that each party could know the case of the other party and then had to lead evidence. He pointed out that the Manoramabai Rane group had not filed any written statement. According to learned counsel, the application at Exhibit 15 cannot be termed as Written Statement. He invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the impugned Judgment wherein the Trial Court has observed that he has carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. He pointed out that though issues were settled, no evidence was recorded and the matter was suddenly decided on an application (Exhibit 15) dated 30/11/1999 filed by Manoramabai Rane group along with copy of the Judgment in First Appeal No. 116 of 1997. He invited my attention to paragraph 37 of the judgment dated 22/6/2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 15/2000, wherein a reference has been made to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in “Jacinto Minguel De Quadres Barretto and others Vs. Haridas Maruti Kamat and another” [2006(2) Bom. C.R. 84], wherein it has been held that the nature of these proceedings as has been understood is that they are in the nature of a inter pleader’s suit. It has been further held that the proceedings being of civil nature, the parties certainly are required to plead their case and lead evidence in support of the same and the ordinary rule of pleadings that no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of a plea not taken ought to be followed in such cases as well. According to Shri Ramani, Sanyogita Rane group has not been given a proper opportunity in the case to prove the case since no evidence was recorded. Therefore, the submission of Shri Ramani is that the impugned Judgment and Award should be set aside and the case should be remanded to the Reference Court for giving opportunity to all the parties to file Written Statement and thereafter to record evidence of the parties and to decide the matter after hearing arguments. In the alternative, according to Mr. Ramani, the present Appeal should be kept pending till the disposal of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Apex Court.

14. ShriJ. F. Melo, learned advocate for Morajkar group, argued that the members of Morajkar group were not parties to L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989 and therefore the Judgment in the said case is not binding on them. According to learned counsel, the above fact has not been considered by the Reference Court. He adopted all the submissions made by Advocate Shri Ramani. Relying upon “Surendra Kumar Vakil and Others Vs. Chief Executive Officer, M.P. and others” [(2004) 10 SCC 126], he argued that in terms of sections 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act, if a judgment, though not inter parties, is sought to be relied on not as precedent but as a piece of evidence, it should be tendered in as evidence. According to him, since the members of Morajkar group were not parties to that L. A. Case No. 19/1989, the said judgment and order dated 12/6/1995 passed in that case, is not inter parties judgment and since the same has not been tendered in as evidence, it could not have been looked into by the Reference Court. He relied upon “Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani” [(2003) 7 SCC 350], wherein it has been held that even in ex parte Proceedings, though the Court is not bound to frame issues and deliver judgment on each issue, it must scrutinise the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and frame the 'points for determination' and deal with each of the points at issue. It has been further held that merely because the defendant is absent, the Court shall not admit evidence, the admissibility whereof is excluded by law. He relied upon “Porbuko Uma Mandrekar and others Vs. Wencesslay Alex D'Silva and others” [ 2005 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 334] in which, inter alia, the scope of Order 41 Rr. 4 and 33 and Order 22 R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been discussed. Reliance has also been placed in the case of “Jacinto Minguel De Quadres Barretto and others”(supra). Learned Counsel for Morajkar group, therefore, argued that the Cross-objection ought to allowed.

15. ShriDessai, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of Manoramabai Rane group, invited my attention to the orders passed by this Court from time to time. In the order dated 9th July, 2010, this Court has observed that this appeal will be governed by the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 116 of 1997 which has been confirmed in a Letters Patent Appeal and that unless there is a stay granted by Apex Court, this appeal will have to be heard on merits. Learned senior counsel pointed out that from time to time it was made clear to Sanyogita Rane group that the appeal will be heard on merits.

16. Mr. Dessai then submitted that in the previous L. A. Case No. 19/1989, the question was of ownership of entire survey holding no. 106 of Karapur village of Bicholim Taluka and the conclusion, on merits, is that the same solely belongs to the legal representatives of Manoramabai Rauji Rane. Learned Senior Counsel read out the relevant detail discussion made in the said L. A. case No. 19/89, for determining the title and about the documents considered therein, for that purpose. He urged that the said judgment was challenged before this Court and in First Appeal No. 116/1997, by Judgment dated 12/10/99, after hearing the parties, the above finding about the ownership of the legal representatives of Manoramabai, has been maintained by the learned Single Judge. He further pointed out that the Judgment of the Single Judge was also challenged before this Court, by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.15/2000 and that by detail Judgment dated 22/6/2009, running into 68 pages, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the same on merits. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the alleged Special Leave Petition, filed by Sanyogita Rane group, has not stayed or placed under suspension, the operation or execution of the said Judgments. He pointed out that the Memo of SLP has not been produced and hence it is not known as to what are the reliefs claimed therein. He produced a copy of the Order dated 11/12/2009 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave (Civil) filed by Sanjay Rane and Ors. Vs. Saibai S. Dubaxi and Ors., wherein the petitioners have been directed to make an application for stay instead of general stay prayed for. According to learned senior counsel, therefore, nothing remains in this appeal and that the same is bound to be dismissed.

17. ShriDessai, further argued that in the first acquisition of 21,450 square metres from survey no. 106, which was subject matter of L. A. case No. 19/1989, though Smt. Saibai Dubaxi and Sanyogita Rane group had laid claim to the said vast acquired land, however, Morajkar group had not claimed any right and hence they were not parties to the said Land Acquisition Case. He then pointed out that during the second acquisition, said Morajkar group claimed right to the acquired land admeasuring 787 square metres of land from the same survey no. 106, which is subject matter of the present litigation due to which they were made parties to the reference. Mr. Dessai contended that land acquisition proceedings start with publication of preliminary notification in Official Gazette and in two daily news papers circulating in the locality and also by giving public notice in the said locality and hence, Morajkar group cannot claim ignorance of the said previous acquisition and cannot claim benefit on the ground that they were not parties to the said L. A. Case No. 19/89. He also submitted that the members of Morajkar group had filed an application for impleadment as parties to the LPA No. 15/2000, but they withdrew the same and by order dated 9/6/2000, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. There is no challenge to that order and hence the decision in LPA No. 15/2000 is binding on Morajkar group. Learned Counsel also submitted that in the present case before the Reference Court, after filing written statement, Morajkar group gave up the claim and the case proceeded ex-parte against them. He therefore argued that Morajkar group cannot now in this appeal claim that the impugned judgment is bad.

18. Learned Senior Counsel, for Manoramabai Rane group, further argued that they filed an application dated 30/11/1999 seeking final judgment, by giving background and informing the Court that the rights are already decided and no trial is required. According to him, Sanyogita Rane group and Morajkar group had to file reply resisting the application and saying that they wanted to produce evidence. He invited my attention to the endorsement made by Sanyogita Rane group on that application saying that they do not wish to file reply but will file written arguments to that application. However they did not file written arguments due to which on 8/2/2000, the Reference Court heard arguments and fixed the matter for orders/judgment on 22/2/2000, on which day the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. Therefore, according to Mr. Dessai, the question of any of the members of Manoramabai Rane group stepping into the witness box, did not arise. Relying upon Sub rule 2(b) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Dessai contended that as per the application at Exhibit 15, a legal proposition was raised by the learned Advocate for Manoramabai Rane group that the Reference Court was barred, by principles analogous to res judicata, from deciding the same issue afresh as the same was already decided in earlier case. He relied upon sections 40, 43, 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act. He also relied upon sections 11 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

19. I have gone through the entire material on record, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the citations relied upon by them.

20. The point that arises for determination is whether the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated by errors and irregularities and that the Reference Court ought to have decided the matter on its own merits and ought not to have considered the Judgment passed in L. A. Case No. 19/89.

21. In the L. A. Case no. 12 of 1991, notices were issued to all the parties to the said reference. All the parties were duly served. The members of Morajkar group first filed their written statement and this was on 27/07/1995. Their written statement is at Exhibit 8. The members of Morajkar group, thereafter, started remaining absent. Even fresh notices were issued to some of them by giving them an opportunity and these notices were duly served but the said parties chose to remain absent. The matter proceeded ex parte against them.

22. On 26/04/1999, the learned advocate for Manoramabai Rauji Rane group filed an application (Exhibit 11) alleging that there were other Land Acquisition Cases before the District Court at Panaji and in L. A. Case no. 19 of 1989, late Smt. Manoramabai Rauji Rane was respondent no. 2 and after her death, the vakalatnama on behalf of her eldest son Shri Fatehsingh Rauji Rane was filed as he was appointed 'Cabeca de Casal' in the Inventory Proceedings after the death of Smt. Manoramabai Rauji Rane. In this application, it was further stated that in the said L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989, the dispute related to survey no. 106 of Carapur village of Bicholim Taluka and the said case was finally disposed of by the District Court on 12/06/1995 and that Sanyogita Rane group has filed an appeal before the High Court at Panaji. A copy of the judgment and award in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989 was annexed to this application. Indisputably, this copy is of the certified copy of the original and there is no doubt about the genuineness of the contents. No reply denying the above facts, was filed by any party.

23. On 09/09/1999, Sanyogita Rane group filed their written statement which is at Exhibit 13. In this written statement, Sanyogita Rane group could have referred to the judgment and award dated 12/06/1995 passed against them in the L. A. Case No. 19/1989. But they have not made any averment about it in their written statement. The roznama written on 09/09/1999 clearly states that the members of Morajkar group were duly served but were absent. On the same date, issues were settled and the matter was fixed for trial. Thus, the contesting parties to the said reference were Sanyogita Rane group and Manoramabai Rauji Rane group and no other person and there was on record the said judgment and award dated 12/6/1995, in L. A. Case No.19/1989, without any objection thereto.

24. Subsequently, on 30/11/1999, learned advocate for Manoramabai Rauji Rane group filed another application (Exhibit 15) wherein it was stated that the appeal filed by Sanyogita Rane group before the High Court has been finally disposed of by judgment dated 12/10/1999. A copy of the said judgment, in the First Appeal No. 116 of 1997, disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court, has been annexed to this application. Indisputably, the said copy is of the certified copy of the original judgment and there is no doubt about the genuineness of the contents of the same.

25. In the L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989, the first issue was whether Sanyogita Rane group proves that the suit plot which is part of survey no. 106 belongs to them. The second issue was whether Saibai S. Dubaxi proves that the suit plot which is part of survey no. 106 belongs to her. The third and the last issue was whether Smt. Manoramabai Rauji Rane proves that she is the owner of the said survey no. 106, to whom the compensation awarded by the L.A.O., is to be paid. It is seen that the learned District Judge, in the said L. A. Case no. 19 of 1989, held that only Manoramabai Rauji Rane is the owner of the said survey holding no. 106 of Carapur village of Bicholim taluka. In the said First Appeal No. 116 of 1997, the judgment and award, in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989 has been maintained.

26. The application at Exhibit 15 was fixed for reply but the learned advocate for Sanyogita Rane group made an endorsement dated 18/01/2000 on the said application stating that he does not wish to file any reply but would file written submissions. The members of the Morajkar group as usual had remained absent. While stating that he does not wish to file reply to the said application, the learned Counsel for Sanyogita Rane group did not inform the Reference Court that the Judgment in First Appeal No. 116/1997 has been challenged, by filing a Letters Patent Appeal. The matter was fixed for arguments on Exhibit 15. Sanyogita Rane group did not take any exception for such course of fixing the matter for arguments on Exhibit 15. On 8.02.2000, again, the members of Morajkar group were absent and in the roznama it is stated that they are ex-parte. Arguments were heard on Exhibit 15. As pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, the prayer in this application was to pass an order and award the compensation to Manoramabai Rane group, by allowing the reference in their favour. It is not the case of Sanyogita Rane group that they objected to the course adopted by the Reference Court. After hearing arguments, the matter was fixed for Orders/judgment. The next date given for that purpose was 22/2/2000. Sanyogita Rane group did not object for fixing the matter for judgment, on the ground that trial had to be held and judgments in L. A. Case no. 19/1989 and in First Appeal No. 116/1997 had to be produced on record and exhibited and that they had to be given opportunity to cross-examine the witness producing the documents, etc., on those documents. On 22/2/2000, all the parties chose to remain absent and the judgment was pronounced whereby the entire compensation awarded by the L.A.O. along with the interest accrued thereon, was ordered to be paid to Manoramabai Rauji Rane group. The above judgment is obviously based on findings in previously decided L. A. Case No. 19/1989 and confirmed in First Appeal No. 116/1997.

27. There can be no dispute in respect of the principal laid down in the case of “Jacinto Minguel De Quadros Barretto” (supra), that the proceedings in reference under section 30 of the Act are in the nature of interpleader's suit and parties are required to plead their case and lead evidence in support of the cases. There can be no dispute that ordinary rule of pleadings that no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of a plea not taken needs to be followed in such cases also. In the proceedings under section 30 of the L. A. Act, there is nothing like plaintiff and defendant or applicant and respondent. All are parties, claiming right either individually or in group. They file their Written statement or Statement of Claim. The issue is which of the parties is entitled to receive the compensation. In the circumstances discussed earlier, in the present case, the question of recording evidence did not arise as in unambiguous terms, in L. A. Case No. 19 of 1989, it has been held that Smt. Manoramabai Rauji Rane is the sole owner of survey no. 106 of Carapur village of Bicholim taluka. This judgment In L. A. Case No. 19/89, was maintained in the said First Appeal No. 116 of 1997, by learned Single Judge of this Court. The finding given by this Court was binding on the Reference Court. Section 54 of the L. A. Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Order 45 thereof. In the present case, Sanyogita Rane group did not directly file the appeal to the Supreme Court from the Judgment In First Appeal No. 116/97, passed by the Single Judge of this High Court, but further put the said Judgment to test before the Division Bench of this Court, by filing LPA No.15/2000. By a detail Judgment dated 22/6/2009, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said LPA holding that there is no merit in the same. It is the contention of Sanyogita Rane group that they have challenged the Judgment, in LPA NO. 15/2000, before the Apex Court, by way of Special leave to Petition. No copy of the petition filed before the Hon,ble Supreme Court has been produced. According to Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel, the main issue before the Apex Court would be whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that neither stay of the Judgment in LPA No. 15/2000, First Appeal No. 116/97 and L.A. Case No. 19/89, has been granted nor stay of proceedings in the present appeal has been granted by the Apex Court. By order dated 9/7/2010, this Court has observed that this appeal will be governed by the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 116/1997 which has been confirmed in a letters patent appeal. It was further observed that unless there is stay granted by the Apex Court, this appeal will have to be heard on merits. Then by order dated 3/9/2010, this Court granted extension of time by four weeks from the date of the Order to comply with the Order dated 9/07/2010. It was made clear that no further adjournment would be granted. On 6/10/2010, this Court directed that this matter shall be heard finally, at admission stage. The judgment holding that Smt. Manoramabai Rane is the sole owner of the land bearing survey no. 106 of Carapur village of Bicholim Taluka, was passed in the year 1995 that is about 17 years back and it still holds good.

28. In terms of sections 56 and 57 of the Evidence Act, Court can take judicial notice of the judgments, though not of the statement of facts therein. In the case of “KiranSingh and others v/s. Chaman Paswan and others” (AIR 1954 SC 340), it has been held that when a case has been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to nonjoinder of necessary party. In the absence of objection from Sanyogita Rane group, at relevant time, for decision of the case on the basis of the judgments in L. A. Case No. 19/89 and First Appeal No. 116/1997, and in the absence of contest of the proceedings by Morajkar group, the Reference Court cannot be said to have decided the case, not on merits, or without there being anything on record, justifying the Judgment.

29. In the case of “Kunhayammedand others v/s. State of Kerala and another” (supra), it has been held that in spite of a petition for special leave to appeal having been filed, the judgment, decree or order against which leave to appeal has been sought for, continues to be final, effective and binding as between the parties. Once leave to appeal has been granted, the finality of the judgment, decree or order appealed against is put in jeopardy though it continues to be binding and effective between the parties unless it is a nullity or unless the Court may pass a specific order staying or suspending the operation or execution of the judgment, decree or order under challenge. The expression “jeopardy” does not mean “not binding” or “not final” or “not effective”. That expression relates to danger of suffering harm or loss. As contended by Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel, Judgment in jeopardy does not disturb its finality. Since no stay or suspension of the operation or execution of the judgment and award in L. A. Case No. 19/1989 or of the judgment in First Appeal No. 116/ 1997 and in LPA No. 15/ 2000 has been granted by the Apex Court, the same continues to be effective and binding as between the parties. The doctrine of merger is based on the principle that there cannot be more than one decree or operative order in respect of the same subject matter and at the same time. In so far as Sanyogita Rane group is concerned, they were parties to that L. A. Case No 19/89. In so far as Morajkar group is concerned, they had tried to intervene in the same proceedings when they were pending in the form of LPA No.15/2000, by filing an application for impleading them as parties. However, Morajkar group withdrew the said Civil Application No. 444/2006 on 09/06/2009. Under section 40 of the Evidence Act, previous judgments are admissible in support of a plea of res judicata in civil cases. If not res judicata, the principles analogous to that are applicable. In any case, the judgment in First Appeal No. 116/1997 was binding on the Reference Court wherein it was held that the land bearing survey no. 106 of Carapur village belongs to Manoramabai Rauji Rane Group. The Reference Court was therefore bound to rely upon the said findings and decide the subsequent case on the basis of the same findings and this is what has been done by the Reference Court. The judgment in the LPA No. 15/2000, being of Division Bench of this Court, is binding on me. In this judgment, it has been upheld that land bearing survey No. 106 of Carapur village belongs to Manoramabai Rauji Rane Group. It is not known as to how long the Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court would take for its final disposal. There is no point in keeping the present appeal pending till then. If the judgments are set aside in the said Special Leave Petition, Sanyogita Rane Group can take recourse to Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

30. Various contentions were also advanced on the point of maintainability of the cross objection. However, I need not go minutely in the same.

31. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal as well as the cross objection.

32. The impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the settled principles of law. No interference with the same is called for.

33. In the result, the appeal and the cross objection are both dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

Print Page