LAXMI MANI DASI Vs. MANIK CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant involves only a short question, of law as to whether a suit can be disposed of finally on the point of res judicata under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC treating as a bar to the suit created by law under clause (b) of sub-role (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC. After careful consideration, I have no hesitation to hold that when the facts are admitted, a question which has been decided fully and anally being an issue, directly and substantially, in the previous suit as in the present suit, it, no doubt, stands as, a bar to the subsequent suit, and in that case, res judicata also operates as a bar to the suit created by law as contemplated under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 CPC.

(2.) To elucidate this point of law, let us refer to the facts of this case. The present suit, out of which this appeal arises, being Title Suit No. 166 of 1979 is the Second Court of Munsif, Jangipur has been brought by Laxmi Mani Dasi for declaration of her title to the suit property, comprising plot No. 23 of Khatian No, 199 of Mouza Kaiyor, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent Manik Chandra Das from disturbing her peaceful possession in the said property. The respondent-defendant Manik Chandra Das contested the suit by filing a written statement challenging the plaintiff's title and possession of the suit property. It was also asserted by the defendant-respondent in his written statement that the property in question belonged to one Ajit Kr. Saha, from whom it was purchased by Laxmi Mani Basi alias Lakshmi Bala Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi, daughter of late Mohini Mohan Das and eldest sister of present plaintiff and that she had brought Title Suit No. 56 of 1971, in the Additional Court of the Munsif at Jangipur, against the present plaintiff Raj Lakshmi Dasi alias Laxmi Dasi in respect of the self-same property which was decreed her favour It has also been stated that during the pendency of the said suit she executed a registered deed of gift and. transferred the property in favour of her brother the present defendant, Manik Chandra Das, who was also impleaded as a co-plaintiff in that suit. The present plaintiff who was a party-defendant in the aforesaid previous suit, preferred an appeal against the decree-obtained by the plaintiff in that suit which was also dismissed by the appellate court on a finding that Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi, the predecessor-in-interest of the present defendant Manik Chandra Das was the real purchaser of the suit property from Ajit Kr. Saha. It has therefore been asserted that in view of the conclusive determination of the title of the present defendant Manik Chandra Das in respect of this property in the previous suit, in which the present plaintiff was the party-defendant, the matter has been settled at rest and the ending en the question of identity of the actual purchaser stands as a bar of res judicata to this suit.

(3.) It has been urged by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff, that both the courts below went wrong in deciding and disposing of the suit on a preliminary issue, under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. inasmuch as, such finding in the previous suit does not relate to a question of jurisdiction or does not constitute a bar to the present suit created by any law for the time being enforce as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C'. It has, therefore, been urged that even if it is a question of res judicata, it is a mixed question of law and fact and in any view of the case it cannot constitute a bar of jurisdiction to the present suit, nor can stand as a bar created by any law as required under Order 14 Rule 2 to dispose of the suit finally and fully as an issue of law only.