MADHUA NAND Vs. SURESHA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain decree of the revenue court dated 27-2-1938 obtained by the appellants was void and not binding on the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendants second set who are arrayed as respondents. The facts briefly stated are as follows: (2) The defendants first set are residents of village Gheri, and the plaintiffs and the defendants second set are residents of an adjoining village Thapli. Both these villages are situated in the district of Garhwal. In the revenue settlement which was made sometime in 1936 Gheri people claimed a right to graze their cattle in a plot of land which was included within the boundaries of the village Thapli and prayed that the plot be included within the boundaries of their village Gheri. The Settlement Officer considered the claim and held that the plot of land over which grazing rights were claimed should be attached to village Gheri and made the entries accordingly. In appeal, the Commissioner overruled the decision of the Record Officer. The Gheri people then filed a suit in the revenue court for a declaration of their rights. In this suit they failed to implead some of the residents of village Thapli. Some of the persons who were impleaded as defendants in that suit died and their heirs were not brought on the record. The suit was referred to arbitration at the instance of some of the parties to the suit but not all. The plaintiffs of the present suit were no parties to the agreement of reference to arbitration. The arbitration award was partly in favour of the plaintiffs of that suit. The revenue court passed a decree in terms of the award. Further appeals and a revision were unsuccessful. Then the suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed in the civil court for a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellants from the revenue court was not binding on the plaintiffs or the defendants second set on the ground, 'inter alia', that the plaintiffs not being parties to the reference to arbitration were not bound by the result of the previous suit.

(2.) The defence to the suit was that the suit was not cognizable by the civil court and further that in any event the decree of the revenue court was binding on the plaintiffs and the defendants second set.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the case was not cognizable by the civil court. In appeal the lower appellate court, reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit.