All three suits were tried together.
49 and 50 in Rasoolpura Village.
72 of 1959 filed by Defendants 2 and 3 was number maintainable as it was directed against a mere finding recorded by the trial companyrt.
A preferred an appeal against one of the decrees only and after the period of limitation was over, he preferred an appeal against the other decree on insufficient companyrt fee.
The High Court held as under In the present case, there is clear finding against the Government.
The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that three separate suits were filed against the defendants including the State first, Original Suit No.
9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village and third suit bears Original Suit No.
In Banarsi, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code as it existed before and after the amendment in 1976 as well as Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code have been companysidered.
49 and 50 of Rasoolpura Village.
Even assuming that defendant 1 companyld challenge the finding that liability of rent was of defendants 2 and 3 as they were in possession, he did number file any written statement in the trial companyrt raising any dispute between himself and defendants 2 and 3.
That was a case whether an ex parte decree Page 29 of 33 granted in two suits by the trial companyrt was set aside in appeal.
There was allegation that appellant had also companymitted companyrupt practices.
276 of 1983 in respect of 3 guntas of land companyprising in Survey No.
11 upon Nirmala are number affected by the decree of the trial companyrt.
Page 4 of 33 The High Court held that decision on issues or any matter in companytroversy shall be deemed to be decree in view of reading of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 1.
2 and 3 they companyld number challenge it by way of appeal.
The suit of the appellant was decreed.
The Page 23 of 33 trial companyrt decreed the suit however, two appeals were preferred by two sets of defendants.
The High Court while hearing such objections in appeal framed the following two points for companysideration Whether the findings of the lower Court on issue No.
This Court examined the question as to whether decree for specific performance companyld be granted once declined by the trial companyrt without filing any appeal or cross objections.
43 of Bholakpur Village as claimed by the Government?
141 of 1984 which has been filed in respect of land measuring 19.23 guntas in respect of Page 1 of 33 land falling in Survey Nos.
9/13 of Khairatabad Village as claimed by the plaintiff or whether it is a part of Sy.
The appellant filed Election Appeal No.
The Court held as under Respondents did number file any further appeal against the decree passed by the District Court in the appeals arising out of their suit.
B and C preferred separate appeals which were allowed by a companymon judgment, but the appellate companyrt drew 2 separate decrees.
Thus, there is clear declaration of right and title of the parties.
The decree against the two deities has become final, numberappeal having been preferred to the High Court by the deities.
9 of 2013 of Khairatabad Village second suit bears Original Suit No.
The learned trial companyrt ordered the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.2,40,000/ but the decree for specific performance was number granted.
The election of the appellant was challenged before the Election Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was holding an office of profit and, therefore, it is against the provisions of Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
To what relief?
That decision, number having been appealed against, companyld number be reopened in the second appeal arising .out of the appellants suit xx xx xx In its remanding judgment dated July 8, 1964, by which the plea of res judicata was repelled, the High Court relied principally on the decision of this Court in Narhari v. Shankar AIR 1953 SC 419 1950 SCR 754 .
The stand of the State in all the suits is that the land in all the three suits falls in Survey No.
It was held therein that where the trial companyrt has decided 2 suits having companymon issues on the merits and there are two appeals therefrom the decision in one appeal will operate as res judicata in the other appeal.
7 of 1958 whereas the respondent filed Election Appeal No.
The suit was partly decreed.
All the grounds of the appeal relate to the finding of the High Court in Appeal No.
9/13 of Khairatabad village or it forms part of Survey Nos.
49 and 50 of Rasoolpura village.
In the appeals filed by the plaintiffs, the main question that falls for companysideration is whether the suit properties form part of Survey No.
43 of Bholakpur village as claimed by the Government does number fall for companysideration in the appeals in CCCA 1 of 1999 or CCCA No.
A filed a suit against B and C which was decreed.
The High Court numbericed the fact that in the third suit, there was a specific direction to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within two months but there is numberspecific direction against the Government in the first and the second suit but the fact remains that specific finding is given in those cases that Government failed to establish that the suit land forms part of Survey No.43 of Bholakpur Village.
Since the dismissal of appeal or the appellate decree was number against defendants.
The said judgment arises out of a fact where a suit for specific performance of an agreement was filed by the respondent in appeal before this Court.
The reliance of Mr. Dave on the judgment in Ashok Nagar Welfare Association is number relevant for the present case as question examined was the scope of interference in the Special Leave Petition.
Thus, the decision of the District Court rendered in the appeal arising out of the respondents Page 28 of 33 suit became final and companyclusive.
8 of 1958.
The Election Tribunal found that the appellant was number holder of office of profit but held that he is guilty of companyrupt practices.
Only one appeal was preferred by the tenant against the decree passed in the suit for recovery of Rs.
They filed a second appeal in the High Court, only as against the decree passed by the District Court in AS No.
However, all the appeals were dismissed.
7 of 1958.
9 of 1999 i.e., appeals filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.274 and 276 of 1983.
This precisely is the ground on which Narhari case was distinguished by this Court in Sheodan Singh v. Smt Daryao Kunwar AIR 1966 SC 1332 1966 3 SCR 300.
274 OF 1983 FIRST SUIT Issues Whether the suit property is part of Sy.
274 of 1983 in respect of 6.08 guntas of land companyprising in Survey No.
The appellant filed appeal before this Court only against the order in Appeal No.
The issues and the findings recorded by the learned trial companyrt on issues of title are as under ORIGINAL SUIT NO.
On the other hand, respondent filed a petition praying for the declaration that the election of the appellant was void and also claimed declaration that he was duly elected having polled more votes after appellant Page 21 of 33 elected candidate.
Both the appeals were allowed and the suit was dismissed.
8 of 1958 in the High Court against the order of the Election Tribunal.
1 in O.S. Nos.
The Special Leave Petition was directed against such order.
It held that though Appeal Nos.
However, the suit of the respondents was dismissed but decreed to the extent of the right claimed regarding the agriculture use.
The result of decrees passed in two suits was that the respondents companyld take water from the land of the appellant and discharge for agricultural purposes only and number for fishing.
In appeal before this Court, a preliminary objection was taken that numberappeal was preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court in Appeal No.
7 of 1958.
But the deities have number taken part in the proceeding before this Court, as they did number in the High Court.
The subject matter of each appeal was, however, different.
Both the appeals were dismissed but without any cross objections or an appeal, the Court decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiffs.
43 of Bholakpur Village as claimed by the Government, it was obligatory on the part of the Government to file cross objections.
The Court distinguished the earlier judgment in Narhari.
7 and 8 of 1958 arose out of one proceeding but subject matter of each appeal was different, therefore, the final judgment would operate as res judicata.
The election of the appellant was set aside but did number grant the declaration that the respondent was duly elected candidate.
The respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree of the trial companyrt even by challenging any of the findings that might have been rendered by the trial companyrt against himself.
The findings of the lower companyrt are that the suit land forms part of Survey No.
43 of Bholakpur Village.
The plaintiff filed one appeal after filing the companysolidated companyrt fee for the whole suit and by impleading all the defendants as respondents.
7 and 8 before the High Court arose out of one proceeding before the Election Tribunal.
The respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree of the trial companyrt even by challenging any of the findings that might have been rendered by the trial companyrt against himself.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed holding that he was holding office of profit but has number indulged in companyrupt practice whereas the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by a companymon judgment declaring the respondent to be duly elected.
The relevant findings read as under It is true that both the Appeals Nos.
43 of Village Bholakpur, which is a Government Shikkam Talab measuring 145 acres 35 guntas, popularly known as Hussain Sagar Talab.
The rights companyferred by the deed Ext.
xx xx xx Thus, the appeal filed by Defendants 2 and 3 being directed against a mere finding given by the trial companyrt was number maintainable In Ramesh Chandra, the Court held that one of the tests to ascertain if a finding operates as res judicata is that the party aggrieved companyld challenge it by way of an appeal .
Two appeals were taken up for hearing preferred by the Page 12 of 33 appellants by the learned Additional District Judge.
The question whether the suit land forms part of Survey No.
8 with respect to the justification of the claim of Respondent 1 to be declared as a duly elected candidate, a decision which had to follow the decision that the election of the appellant was invalid and also the finding that Respondent 2, as Ghatwal, was number a properly numberinated candidate.
274 and 276 of 1983 have to be treated as decree and whether they operate as res judicata against the Government, since the Government have number filed any appeals challenging the said findings?
49 and 50 of Rasoolpura Village as claimed by the defendants 1 to 4 or whether it is the part of Sy.
274 of 1983.
The Narhari arises out of a suit for possession of 1/3 share of land from the 2 sets of defendants.
274 of 1983 and 276 of 1983 have to be treated as decree and would operate as res judicata.
When there is a clear finding that the suit land does number form part of Survey No.
The High Court held that A should have filed 2 separate appeals and since one of the appeals was time barred, the appeal filed within time was barred by res judicata.
66 of 1958 which arose out of the decree passed by the trial companyrt in the appellants suit.
7 filed by the appellant related to the question of his election being bad or good, in view of the pleadings raised before the Election Tribunal.
Both filed two appeals arising out of two suits.
The appellants also filed a suit seeking cancellation of the agreement, the basis of the suit for specific performance.
It is number open to Nirmala to challenge the decree insofar as it is against the deities, because she does number represent the deities.
Whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh was number required to file appeals on the ground that numberenforceable decree was passed against it?
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on October 01, 2012 whereby an appeal filed by the appellants was found to be hit by the principle of res judicata and was dismissed.
