ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. SMT. PRASONY BAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. It is not necessary for us to give history of the litigation in detail because the same has been narrated meticulously by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2001. On the basis of facts of the case, learned Single Judge has found that controversy between the parties stood decided finally with regard to cancellation of the allotment to Abdul Rehman i.e. the present appellant and also the mutation in favour of Smt. Prasony Bai i.e. the respondent who had suffered the agony of this litigation for decade together. The litigation had started in the year 1979 and ended on 14.6.1999 after two rounds of litigation. The present appellant having failed in the previous litigations filed the present suit No. 17/99 with the prayer for declaration that Smt. Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh and 'SANAD' allotted to her in February, 1986 is illegal, that the plaintiff Abdul Rahman is in adverse possession of the land in question, the prayer has also been made in the suit for declaration that Smt. Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh; that the plaintiff Abdul Rehman was in adverse possession even during the life time of Mangal Singh. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed:

(2.) THE Board of Revenue vide its order dated 28.11.1985, had observed that allotment made to the present appellant Abdul Rahman vide order dated 11.5.1979 was passed at the back of Smt. Prasony Bai; the Tehsildar should to have allotted the land of Abdul Rahman without giving any notice to the persons in whose names the land already stood recorded; and the Tehsildar Kishangarhbas had acted in a most irresponsible manner while allotting the land to present appellant Abdul Raman and for that high -handedness, disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against Tehsildar. The Board of Revenue had set aside the order passed in favour of Abdul Rahman and had restored the order dated 18.7.1979 passed by the Collector with the further direction that Tehsildar should be dealt with departmentally.

(3.) IMPORT of the order of the Board of Revenue was that the allotment made in favour of the present appellant stood cancelled and the action of the Revenue Authorities in depriving Prasony Bai daughter of Mangal Singh from the land in question was adversely commented. This order of Board of Revenue was challenged before the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2274/85, but the writ petition of Abdul Raman i.e. the present appellant was dismissed and the order of the Board of Revenue was upheld. This cancellation of allotment made to Abdul Raman attained finality and present appellant had lost the case before each and every Court upto the High Court. The Review Application filed before Revenue Board was also dismissed. The mutation were opened in the name of Prasony Bai, even at this juncture, the present appellant had filed the present suit on the same facts and for the same relief. This time, the appellant Abdul Rahman challenged that Prasony Bai is not the daughter of Mangal Singh, whereas, the controversy has already been adjudicated upon by the Courts below for which a preliminary issue had been framed by the Court. In the backdrop of this factual situation, the learned Single Judge found it to be a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 151, CPC read with Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure and has held that the appellant despite having lost two times on the same issue in regard to same property was still dragging on the litigation by way of filing of this civil suit. On the basis of record of the original proceedings which was summoned by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of judgment of the Revenue Board etc., it was held that the subject matter of the suit stood fully covered by the principle of res judicata and suit of the plaintiff was to be dismissed on that count at the cost of Rs. 3,000/ -. Learned Single Judge has also observed that it is unfortunate that for last 20 years the respondent was not able to get the possession despite being successful in all the cases in the trial Court. Concerned Tehsildar was therefore directed to execute the orders by putting the defendant Parsony Bai in possession within a period of 15 days and accordingly the revision petition as well as suit filed by the revision petition were dismissed.