MAKHAN RAM ALIAS MAKHAN SINGH Vs. UJAGAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below rejecting the registered Will dated 17.9.1986, which was set up by the plaintiff-appellant. The basic reason for rejection of the Will is that in the earlier proceedings in Civil Suit No. 859 of 1992, decided on 22.11.1994, the plaintiff-appellant was a contesting defendant and the aforementioned Will had not been proved and the suit filed by Ujjagar Singh, defendant-respondent was decreed. It is a different matter that when the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1994, was challenged before the Appellate Court, the matter was compromised vide order dated 20.11.1996 (Mark A & B). However, both the Courts have found that the findings returned with regard to the Will dated 17.9.1986 were not set aside and, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant could not have re-agitated the same matter by filing a fresh suit. The lower Appellate Court while endorsing the finding recorded by the trial Court has observed as under :-

(2.) MR . B.S. Bali, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that heavy reliance on the findings recorded in the earlier Civil Suit No. 859 of 1992, decided on 22.11.1994 (Ex. D-3) has been illegally placed by both the Courts below while discarding the registered Will set up by the plaintiff- appellant. According to the learned counsel once the Appellate Court has accepted the compromise then the findings recorded in Ex. D-3, should be deemed to be washed off and no notice of the same could have been taken. Learned counsel has insisted that the Courts below should have examined the evidence in detail led by the plaintiff-appellant without being influenced by the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1994 as the same stood merged in the order of compromise dated 20.11.1996 (Mark-A and B).

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that once an issue has been raised, evidence is led and the findings have been recorded, then in any subsequent proceedings when the same issue is raised again, then the evidence produced earlier along with the findings are not rendered irrelevant to determine the controversy in the subsequent proceedings. The aforementioned principle is based on sound public policy because otherwise in any subsequent proceedings, the question of earlier adjudication would become irrelevant and all issues can be reopened resulting into multiplicity and vexatious litigation. The question is not res integra. The legal proposition that the earlier judgment and decree would be relevant in subsequent proceedings and the findings recorded therein cannot be wiped out came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Prasad v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 228. In that case, the Civil Court has recorded the finding that the decree obtained earlier was collusive and fraudulent. The aforementioned finding was affirmed in appeal. However, when the second appeal was pending, by operation of law and the issuance of notification under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the proceedings stood abated. In the consolidation proceedings, the evidence and the findings of the trial Court as well as that of the Appellate Court that the earlier decree was collusive and fraudulent, were relied upon. The Supreme Court found that the earlier findings were relevant despite the fact that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred and the proceedings had abated. The view of their Lordships is discernible in para 8 of the judgment and the same reads as under :-