LAWS(PVC)-1914-6-79

MAQBUL FATIMA Vs. AMIR HASAN KHAN

Decided On June 30, 1914
MAQBUL FATIMA Appellant
V/S
AMIR HASAN KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for reliefs set forth in the following words: (a) That it be declared that the judgement , dated the 2nd of February, 1911, by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, between the parties, and upheld by the Honourable High Court on the 6th of November, 1912, is binding between the parties, and operates as res judicata against the defendants on the points heard and decided between them in all subsequent proceedings even in the Rampur court. (b) That the defendants be restrained by a perpetual injunction from continuing their suit in the court of the District Judge of the Rampur State against the plaintiffs, which they have instituted there for the recovery of a moiety of the estate situated in the ceded district of Rampur * * * * * *.

(2.) It will be convenient very shortly to state here the facts which led to the institution of the present suit. At one time one Nawab Muhammad Altaf Ali Khan was the owner of considerable property situated partly in Bareilly and partly in the Rampur State. Upon the death of Nawab Muhammad Altaf Ali Khan disputes arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the title to the property situated in both places. The plaintiffs instituted a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly for a declaration of their title in respect of so much of the property as was situate in the district of Bareilly. That suit resulted in favour of the plaintiffs. While it was pending the defendants instituted another suit in Rampur, claiming possession against the defendants in that suit (the plaintiffs in the present suit) of the property situate in Rampur. Thereupon the plaintiffs instituted the present suit claiming the reliefs set forth above.

(3.) There can be no doubt that if all the property was situated in British India, the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, confirmed by the High Court, would operate as res judicata against the defendants. The difficulty is that part of the property is situated in Rampur, outside British India.