MUHAMED KOMBANTHODIKA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal poses the question whether the judgment against one co-owner in a previous suit would operate as res judicata against the other in a subsequent suit? By the order impugned, the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode dismissed O.A.No.41/2011 holding that the application is barred by the principles of res judicata, inasmuch as an earlier application, O.A.No.7/1986, preferred by the applicant's brother, a coowner, was dismissed, which order (Ext.B3) had attained finality. The aggrieved applicant is the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:-

(3.) The Divisional Forest Officer concerned filed counter affidavit contending that the scheduled property forms part of a huge malavaram known as Ex-Gwalior Rayons Forest, having an extent of 12215.68 hectares. It was notified as a vested forest as per notification no.82055/FS2-1/76/AD dtd. 11/1/1977. The property was not cultivated with cashew as on 10/5/1971. Nor was it converted to a rubber plantation thereafter. The respondent specifically pleaded that the present application is barred by res judicata in view of the Order passed in O.A.No.7/1986, which was confirmed by the High Court in M.F.A.No.496/1989 and thereafter, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.22831/1997. On such premise, the respondent sought for dismissal of the O.A.