SURADHANI DUTTA Vs. SITOO SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery o? possession of certain parcels of land on the allegation that the plaintiffs got a decree in respect of them in 1908 but from which the defendants subsequently dispossessed them. The facts are that in 1908 the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants and other persons for recovery of 4 pakis of land measured according to the standard called Nalkarsha rod. In that litigation they finally got a decree for 3 pakis of land according to that measurement, namely, Nalkarsha measurement. They put that decree in execution when a Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court to deliver possession to the plaintiffs. The Commissioner felt some difficulty in regard to the measurement to be applied and the plaintiffs set up a Patlai rod of 14 cubits 1 inch, while the defendants set up the Nalkarsha of 13 cubits. The Commissioner made a compromise with the consent of the parties by which the length of the rod was fixed somewhere between these two figures and, according to that measurement, he delivered possession to the plaintiffs of 3 pakis of the land which, according to Nalkarsha measurement, came to 3 1/2 pakis. Subsequently, the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the whole of 3 1/2 pakis. The plaintiffs got a decree for 3 pakis according to Nalkarsha measurement, and the only point in issue is with regard to the plaintiff's right to recover the bigha remaining.

(2.) The Trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiffs holding that the defendants are bound by the result of the previous litigation. 111 appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that decree holding that the plaintiffs in the previous suit brought a claim for 4 pakis of Nalkarsha land while they got a decree for 3 pakis of Nalkarsha land, and therefore, so much of the order of the Executing Court as purported to put the plaintiffs in possession of 3 1/2 pakis was not right and could not be enforced. In this view of the matter he held that the plaintiffs ate entitled to 3 pakis and dismissed the suit for the remaining 1/2 paki.

(3.) On appeal several objections were taken to the decision of the Court of Appeal below. It is urged that under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, the defendants are not entitled to object to the plaintiffs right to recover the whole 3 1/2 pakis. I may here mention that one of the defendants, namely, defendant No. 3, was not a party to the agreement before the Commissioner in $he previous execution proceeding as to the length of the rod used in measuring the land decreed to the plaintiffs in that suit. With regard to this contention it is enough to say that the present suit is not a continuation of the previous litigation but is based upon a subsequent cause of action, namely, dispossession by the defendants long after 100S. The plaintiffs, therefore, must succeed on the strength of his title. The learned Court of Appeal below was perfectly right to the statement of facts that the plaintiffs had brought a suit for 4 pakis and got a decree for 3 pakis and they were not tinder the ptovisions of the law entitled to the regaining 1/2 paki. This contention of the plaintiffs has been met by the learned Judge by observing that Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, bars the suit but it does not prevent the defendant from setting up a defence based upon an objection which could have teen taken under Section 47, and in support of this view reliance is placed on the case of Nil Kamal V. Jahnati Chowdhurani 26 C. 946 : 13 Ind. Cas. (N.S.) 1205, which follows the case of Bhiram Ali V/s. Gopi Kanth 24 C. 355 : 1 C.W.N. 396 : 12 Ind. Cas. (N.S.) 904. These cases are again followed in the cases of Durga Charan Agradani V/s. Karamat Khan 7 C.W.N. 607 and Chandramoni Saha V/s. Halijennessa Bibi 4 Ind. Cas. 168 : 9 C.L.J. 464. It, therefore, seems to be settled that, so far as this Court is concerned, an objection which could have been raised in a suit by the plaintiff under Section 47, can be made the ground of defence in a subsequent suit. The result, therefore, in my judgment, is that, in the first place, Section 47 has no application, because the present suit is based upon a different cause of action and, secondly, it is competent to the defendants to set up the defence, as in this case, without violating the provisions of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.