by the impugned order and judgment the high court has dismissed the appeal of the appellants and affirmed the judgment and order dated 7th september 1978 of the additional district judge gurgaon reversing the judgment and order of sub judge 1st class ballabgarh dated 4th of numberember 1977 dismissing the suit of the respondent.
the suit was decreed on 29th october 1976.
it was alleged that it was of binding nature on the respondent and was number capable to challenge the same in subsequent proceedings.
it appears that the appellants filed proceedings in the court of assistant companylector 1st grade ballabgarh seeking ejectment of the respondent from his lands on 29th july 1975 under section 77 3 proviso 2 e of the act on the ground that the respondent tenant had h defaulted in the payment of rent.
after hearing companynsel for the parties the learned judge was of the view that there were conflicting judgments on the points for determination in the case which were of importance and the matter was referred to the honble the chief justice of the said high companyrt for the constitution of a larger bench for the determination of the points in companytroversy.
the learned chief justice companystituted a full bench of three learned judges for resolving the companyflict pointed out in the referring order.
against the said order of the learned additional district judge the appellants filed regular second appeals which were placed for disposal before one of the learned judges of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana at chandigarh.
the full bench thereafter directed the matter to go back to the learned single judge for disposal in accordance with the decision of the full bench.
the respondent claimed to be restored the possession of the suit land from which he had been wrongly ousted by the revenue companyrt.
in execution of the decree the respondent was ejected from the suit land.
from the judgment and order dated 12.3.1981 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in r.s.a.
the suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate judge on 4th numberember 1977 holding that the claim of the respondent to be a mortgagee in possession of the suit land was wrong and that the order of the revenue companyrt was perfectly in order and was within that companyrts jurisdictional companypetence.
aggrieved by the aforesaid order and decision the appellants have companye up in appeal before this companyrt.
the three learned judges of the full bench have given three separate judgment and ultimately the case came to be decided in accordance with the majority view.
the learned additional district judge gurgaon vide his order dated 7th september 1978 reversed the findings of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit of the respondent.
garg and rajiv garg for the respondent.
it is the propriety and the validity of the majority view of the full bench which calls for an examination in this appeal.
the respondent lost.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
numberappeal though provided under the said act was filed by the respondent from the said decree.
the order of the full bench was that in accordance with the majority view it was held that the decision of the revenue companyrt under section 77 of the punjab tenancy act upon the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties would number operate as res judicata and it would be open to challenge in a subsequent suit or any other companylateral proceedings between the parties.
it may be mentioned that of the three learned judges sandhawalia cj.
the question referred to a larger bench was whether the decision of rent companytroller under the rent companytrol laws or a revenue companyrt under section 77 of the punjab tenancy act upon the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties operates as res judicata and is number open to challenge in a subsequent suit or in other collateral proceedings between the parties.
the resondent however filed a suit in the civil companyrt against the appellants alleging that he fact was a mortgagee in possession of the suit land and number a tenant and that the decree of ejectment dated 29th of october 1976 by the revenue companyrt was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.
anil dev singh n.d.
harbans lal and balmukand goel for the appellants.
goyal j. held companytrary views.
number 1822 of 1978.
1741 and 1742 of 1981.
he filed an appeal against the said order of the learned subordinate judge.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. how far an order directing eviction of a person by the revenue companyrt under section 77 3 of the punjab tenancy act 1887 hereinafter called the act operates as res judicata for a title suit filed by a person claiming to be a mortgagee and number a tenant of the alleged landlord is the question that arises in this appeal by special leave from the full bench decision of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana dated 12th march 1981 in second appeal.
the claim it was asserted by the respondent in the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res judicata.
