In order, however, to appreciate the issues as above, it would be companyvenient to advert to the companytextual facts at this juncture.
Incidentally, the records depict that Ramgopal also initiated a civil action being suit No.157A of 1935 wherein one Balmukund, Kisnibai and Radhabai were joined as defendants.
IIB Was Mahadev an orphan at the time of his adoption?
The relevant issues of 1968 suit are I Does the Plaintiff prove that Radhabai was authorised to adopt a son by Mahadeo?
In the action an issue pertaining to question of Ramgopals adoption to Mohanlal was raised and the same was answered in the affirmative whereas Ramgopals adoption to Kisnibai was negatived.
The issue pertaining to the doctrine of res judicata thus calls for discussion at this stage.
The records depict that the said finding stands affirmed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.2A of 1939.
The issues relevant in the present companytext being Whether the Plaintiff No.2 was adopted as a son by Mohan Lal?
Admittedly Mahadeo died on Ist August, 1919 and the property being the subject matter of the suit, belonged to one Mohanlal who died in 1923 leaving him surviving his widow Kisnibai who died in 1951.
IIA Was Mahadev the husband of the Defendant, adopted by Mohan Lal 20 years ago at Tholai in the Jaipur Estate?
The dismissal order, however, was challenged in first Appeal No.13 of 1974 before the High Court Nagpur Bench but same also did number find favour with the Appellate Court, resultantly the appeal was dismissed and hence the appeal before this Court.
V .in the affirmative.
The plaintiff alleged that he was taken in adoption by one Radhabai on 25th April, 1967 who however was married to Mahadeo.
IIC Was his adoption vaild?
I as above was answered in the affirmative by the Trial Judge and the issue Nos.
The facts disclose that the plaintiff appellant herein instituted a civil litigation being Suit No.13 of 1974 against the denial of claim for possession of the property.
IIA, IIB and IIC were answered in the negative.
VI .in the affirmative.
VII .in the affirmative.
and on the basis whereof dismissed the suit.
The 1939 appeal arising out of Civil Suit of 1935 though raises more or less similar issues but to avoid prolixity we need number dilate thereon but deal with the issues as raised in the 1968 Suit which has been found to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
BANERJEE,J. The cardinal issue in this appeal by the grant of special leave against the judgment of Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of Resjudicata or Constructive Resjudicata envisaged under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the Explanation including Explanation VIII thereto in terms of the provisions of Amendment Act of 1976.
