AHEMAD IBRAHIM Vs. KHOKHAR ISSA ABULKARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original plaintiff appellants have filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the decision of both the Courts below dismissing their suit as barred by res judicata.

(2.) In order to appreciate the real controversy between the parties centering round the question of res judicata it is necessary to have a look at certain relevant facts. The plaintiffs are the heirs of one Ibrahim Hasanali. Appellants plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are his sons while appellant No. 3 is his daughter. In order to understand the relations between the parties it is profitable to glance through the relevant pedigree. There was one Ibrahim Hasan common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had three sons Abdulkarim Abdulla and Ahmed and a daughter Amna out of whom Abdulla plaintiff No. 1 Ahmed Plaintiff No. 2 and Amna Plaintiff No. 3 are alive while Abdulkarim is dead. He died in the life time of his father Ibrahim. Defendant No 2 Amna Umar is the widow of that Abdulkarim while defendant No. 1 Issa is the son of that Abdulkarim. Defendant No. 3 Jubeda is the daughter of that Abdulkarim. The suit house bearing City Survey No. 320-D-6 belonged to the father of the plaintiffs as well as deceased Abdulkarim whose heirs and legal representatives are the present defendants 1 2 and 3 i.e. respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3. It is obvious that respondent No. 1 is the nephew of the plaintiffs while respondent No. 3 is their neice while defendant No. 2 is the widow of plaintiffs deceased brother Abdulkarim. These facts are well established on the record of the case. The plaintiffs father Ibrahim was the original owner of the suit house. He died about 7 years before the institution of the present suit. So far as the plaintiffs elder brother Abdulkarim is concerned he had expired during the life time of Ibrahim Hasanali The case of the Plaintiffs is that the deceased Ibrahim Hasanali and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement about the suit house and a registered document was entered into between them and as per the document the respondents were permitted to stay in the suit house as mere licensees while plaintiffs 1 and 2 surviving sons of the original owner of the property had become sole owners. The said document on the basis of which the plaintiffs traced their title is at Ex. 20 on the record of the case. The plaintiffs case is that plaintiff No. 2 their married sister who is the only daughter of the original owner Ibrahim was given some other property while plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were made sole owners of the suit property as per document Ex. 20. Their case further is that their elder brother having died in the life time of their father his heirs had no right title and interest in the property of Ibrahim and hence they were not given any right in the suit property but they were allowed to stay as the licensees in the suit house by deceased Ibrahim. The aforesaid document Ex. 20 was executed on 3rd July 1947.

(3.) Now follows the sequence of events in the background of which the plea of res judicata as applicable to the present proceedings has to be appreciated.