BALJEET SINGH Vs. RISAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These nine appeals, by special leave, are against the orders of the board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing nine second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that the orders of the First Appellate Court in three other connected first appeals had become final and operated as res judicata.

(2.) Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh, hoshiar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these brothers instituted four suits. Hoshiar Singh instituted suit No. 48 of 1944 under s. 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U. P. XVII of 1939) , against one Bhartu, suit No. 49 against Har Gyan, mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram, sons of Sis Kam, brother of Bhartu, suit No. 50 against Har Gyan and mukhtiar Singh, sons of Sis Ram, and suit No. 51 against one Banwari. Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos. 63, 61, 60 and 62 against similar defendants respectively. Mukhtiar Singh's suits against those defendants, respectively, were Nos. 67, 65, 64 and 66. Each of these suits was for different sets of plots. The allegations of the plaintiffs in each suit and the contentions of the defendant in each suit were similar and therefore similar issues were framed in each suit and all the suits were tried together and were disposed of by one common judgment. Twelve decrees were, however, prepared. Against the twelve decrees the defendants-judgment debtors in each decree filed twelve first appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division. The Additional Commissioner dismissed three appeals for default. These were the appeals which were filed against Hoshiar singh, Karam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by Banwari. The Additional Commissioner heard the remaining nine appeals on merits and dismissed them. The defendants-judgment debtors then filed nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue. They were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954.

(3.) The applications for special leave were filed in this Court in November 1954. Special leave was granted on April 18, 1955. By the time the appeals came up for hearing, some other events took place and as a result of them the respondents filed an application for adducing additional evidence under o. XLV, r. 1 to 5, Supreme Court Rules in November 1959, and also included in their statement of case a narration of those events and their effect.