BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS versus RISAL SINGH & OTHERS

BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS versus RISAL SINGH & OTHERS

The appeals had not become infructuous as there was nothing in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (as amended up to the date of notification under s.52) that applied retrospectively to bar them. The Board of Revenue erred in holding the appeals barred by res judicata, since the prior suits involved different parties and subject matter (plots), despite being decided by a common judgment.

Parties
Appellant: Baljeet Singh & Others; Respondent: Risal Singh & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 February 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated May 7, 1954 of the U.p. Board of Revenue in Second Appeals Nos. 53 to 61 of 1945 46
Outcome
Appeals allowed.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Consolidation of Holdings, Tenure Rights
Civil Procedure Land Law Res Judicata Consolidation of Holdings Tenure Rights

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baljeet Singh & Others

Appellant

Risal Singh & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated May 7, 1954 of the U.p. Board of Revenue in Second Appeals Nos. 53 to 61 of 1945 46

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeals before the Supreme Court had become infructuous due to consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
  2. 2 Whether the appeals before the Board of Revenue were barred by res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals had not become infructuous as there was nothing in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (as amended up to the date of notification under s.52) that applied retrospectively to bar them. The Board of Revenue erred in holding the appeals barred by res judicata, since the prior suits involved different parties and subject matter (plots), despite being decided by a common judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed.

Orders

  • Order of the Board of Revenue set aside.
  • Matters remanded to the Board of Revenue for further hearing and decision according to law.