MONOTOSH PAUL Vs. GOPAL CHANDRA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows:

(2.) The said Title Suit No. 18 of 1998 came up for final hearing when the parties adduced evidence and the learned trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 26.7.2005 dismissed the said suit with the finding that the present suit is barred by law of limitation and it is also hit by the principles of res judicata. According to the learned trial Court the parties in the previous litigation (Title Suit. No. 167 of 1976) and the present suit are the same, the subject matter is identical and the dispute has been finally decided by a competent Court of law in the previous litigation.

(3.) Challenging such judgment and decree of the learned trial Court [learned 1st Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basirhat], the plaintiff filed a Title Appeal No. 38 of 2006 which was placed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basirhat. The learned First Appellate Court allowed the said Title Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court upon the finding that the property involved in the previous Suit i.e. Title Suit No. 167 of 1976 was different from the property involved in the present Title Suit No. 18 of 1998. The learned First Appellate Court took note of the fact that the Khatian number concerning the property in dispute in the two cases are different and that the plaintiff purchased the property mention in Khatian No. 3413 and the defendants purchased the property mentioned in Khatian No. 7672 and, thus, the learned First Appellate Court found that since the properties were different in the two suits, the principles of res judicata cannot be applied.