ABDUL RAHMAN versus PRASONY BAI AND ANR.

ABDUL RAHMAN versus PRASONY BAI AND ANR.

The High Court had jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and dispose of the suit on its own motion; issues that could have been raised before the revenue authorities but were not, and whose proceedings attained finality, are barred by constructive res judicata; appellant, having submitted to jurisdiction and participated in proceedings, cannot later challenge the same; as tenant, appellant could not claim adverse possession or question title; suit is not maintainable.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Rahman; Respondent No. 1: Prasony Bai; Respondent No. 2: Another Respondent
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Rajasthan High Court, D.b.c.s.a. 191 No. 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Constructive Res Judicata, Withdrawal of Suit, Jurisdiction of High Court, Civil Suit Disposal
Civil Procedure Res Judicata Constructive Res Judicata Withdrawal of Suit Jurisdiction of High Court Civil Suit Disposal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Rahman

Appellant

Prasony Bai

Respondent No. 1

Another Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Rajasthan High Court, D.b.c.s.a. 191 No. 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata
  2. 2 Whether High Court had jurisdiction to withdraw the suit and dispose it without notice under Section 24 CPC
  3. 3 Whether procedure for disposal of the suit on preliminary issues was followed

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court had jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and dispose of the suit on its own motion; issues that could have been raised before the revenue authorities but were not, and whose proceedings attained finality, are barred by constructive res judicata; appellant, having submitted to jurisdiction and participated in proceedings, cannot later challenge the same; as tenant, appellant could not claim adverse possession or question title; suit is not maintainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • No interference with High Court judgment under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
  • No relief to appellant; suit not maintainable