SADDAM HUSSAIN QURESHI Vs. MASOOM QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 25/1/2018 passed in Civil Suit No.12-A/2010, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the plaint holding it to be barred by principles of res judicata under Sec. 11 of CPC. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction by submitting, inter alia, that predecessor-in-interest of theirs, namely, Moinuddin was the erstwhile owner of the property in question bearing Khasra No.483/5 admeasuring 0.023 hectare situated at Shivnandanpur, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja and upon his sad demise on 18/2/2002, it was inherited by them. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.1-Masoom Qureshi, who was the son of their deceased sister-Fatima, had got the revenue papers mutated in his name along with them by taking undue advantage of their being minors and sold the same to Defendant No.2-Smt. Ranjana Gupta without any authority under a registered deed of sale dtd. 11/9/2006 and has obtained the revenue papers recorded in her name. Further contention of the plaintiffs is that since the said Defendant has raised the construction during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, they have been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 21/5/2010, claiming ownership with regard to the suit land and for the declaration to the effect that the alleged registered deed of sale is null and void with a further relief of injunction restraining Defendant No.2 from interfering in their peaceful possession and praying alternatively for the vacant possession of it.

(3.) Defendant 2 has contested the suit and during trial moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by submitting, inter alia, that the alleged mutation, which was recorded jointly in the name of the Plaintiffs, and the said Defendant-Masoom Qureshi as well as the alleged sale were questioned by one Jahanara while projecting herself to be the daughter of said Moinuddin in a suit registered as Civil Suit No.4-A/2008, renumbered as Civil Suit No.1-A/2013 and as the said suit was ended up on 20/1/2013 by the First Additional District Judge, Lok Adalat, Ambikapur on the basis of compromise upholding the alleged mutation, therefore, the instant claim with regard to the same subject matter is barred by the principles of res judicata and the suit is, therefore, liable to be rejected.