GODIMELLA RANGAMMA Vs. PANCHANGAM NARASIMHACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint sites (a) and (b) for himself and for the other agraharamdars of the village (defendants Nos. 3 to 13) on the following allegations: (a) That the agraharamdars gave the suit sites for temporary residence to one Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu, and (b) that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in wrongful possession after the death of Tulasi Lakshmanacharyulu.

(2.) The reliefs prayed for are for ejecting the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit sites and for delivery of possession of the said suit sites jointly to the plaintiff and to the defendants Nos. 3 to 13.

(3.) One of the defences raised by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was, that the present suit is barred as res judicata by reason of the decision in a prior suit brought by another agraharamdar, Verikatacharana Charyulu (Original Suit No. 78 of 1910 of the Gudivada District Munsif s Court). The present 1st plaintiff was the 4th defendant in the former suit. That suit was also directed against the present defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the prayer of that plaint was for establishing the joint right of the plaintiff therein (along with the agraharamdars) in the suit sites and his exclusive right of way over the sites and also for ejecting the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from the suit sites and for delivery of joint possession-of the entire suit sites to the plaintiff along with the defendants other than Nos. 1 and 2 and for an injunction as regards the right of way. It is thus clear to me that the substantial relief claimed in this suit was included among the reliefs prayed for in the other suit, the relief being the delivery of possession of the sites to all the agraharamdars, though the prior suit included one or two reliefs in which one of the agraharamdars alone was interested. In the former suit, the agraharamdars, who were made defendants Nos. 3 to 16, remained ex parte and there can be no reasonable doubt that they supported the plaintiff in that suit. That suit was dismissed on the merits and there is no allegation or suggestion in the plaint in this suit that the former suit was not litigated in good faith. In the present suit also, the other agraharamdars (defendants Nos. 3, to 13) allowed the suit to proceed ex parte and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alone were the contesting defendants. During the pandency of the present suit in he District Munsif s Court, another agraharamdar was added as the 2nd plaintiff on the record. He is the first respondent before as. He was added after the issues were framed in tip case. The learned District Munsif applied explanation 6 to Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, corresponding to explanation 5 to old Section 13, and held that as the plaintiff in the former suit of 1910 litigated bona fide in respect of the private right claimed in common for himself and the agraharamdars over the plaint sites and as the present 1st plaintiff was one of the ex parte defendants in the former suit, the judgment in the former suit was res judicata in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the present suit. He, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs.