BADRINARAYAN SINGH versus KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER

BADRINARAYAN SINGH versus KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER

Where two appeals arise out of one proceeding but relate to different subject matters, the decisions, though rendered in a single judgment, amount to two distinct decisions. So long as the order in Appeal No. 7 confirming the setting aside of the appellant's election stands, the appellant cannot challenge the finding about his holding an office of profit in the present appeal, which is based on the correctness of that finding. The current appeal is therefore barred by res judicata.

Parties
Appellant: Badri Narain Singh; Respondent No. 1: Kamdeo Prasad Singh; Respondent No. 2: Udaipralap Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 September 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated March 20, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Election Appeal No. 8 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Office of Profit, Election Petition, Appeal Maintainability
Election Law Civil Procedure Res Judicata Office of Profit Election Petition Appeal Maintainability

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Badri Narain Singh

Appellant

Kamdeo Prasad Singh

Respondent No. 1

Udaipralap Singh

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated March 20, 1959, of the Patna High Court in Election Appeal No. 8 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal by the appellant is barred by res judicata because he did not appeal against the High Court's order in Appeal No. 7 dismissing his election.
  2. 2 Whether, in cases where two appeals arise out of one proceeding but with different subject matters, a decision in one appeal operates as res judicata in the other.
  3. 3 Whether the office of Ghatwal is an office of profit under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi

Where two appeals arise out of one proceeding but relate to different subject matters, the decisions, though rendered in a single judgment, amount to two distinct decisions. So long as the order in Appeal No. 7 confirming the setting aside of the appellant's election stands, the appellant cannot challenge the finding about his holding an office of profit in the present appeal, which is based on the correctness of that finding. The current appeal is therefore barred by res judicata.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is accepted; the appeal is dismissed with costs.