# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 413
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 1327 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-sunita-yadav-ors-49209
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166-U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998-Rule 220 A(3)(i)-Determination of
compensation-Fatal accident case-Deceased
was aged about 28 years-He was proprietor
of Tent House-Rs. 8,73,500/- awarded by
Tribunal-enhancement
sought-monthly
income of deceased at Rs. 8000/- i.e.
96,000 p.a.-Future prospects taken at 50%-
Deducted
one-fourth
towards
personal
expenses of deceased-Multiplier of 17
applied-Total loss of dependency assessed
at Rs. 18,36,000-And also added Rs. 70,000
for
various
damages-Entitlement
to
compensation of Rs. 19,06,000 madeAlongwith interest @ 7% p.a. (Para 1 to 39)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors.
413

(ii) Lost Monthly Income + Future
Prospects (Lost Monthly Income x 50%)

=1800 + 900 = 2700

(iii) Lost Annual Income (to the
claimant) = 2700 x 12 = 32,400

(iv)Total Income Lost = Lost Annual
Income x Applied Multiplier= 32400x18 =

5,83,000

(v) Medical Expenses = 1,50,000

(vi) Compensation towards expenses for
future and current replacement of the

artificial limb = 2,00,000

(vii)Sum awarded towards mental and
physical pain = 50,000

(viii) Loss of amenities or loss
expectations of life or pain in the future =
2,000

The
total
compensation
would
therefore, work out to a figure = 9,85,000

33. The impugned award is modified
and it is ordered that the Insurance Company
shall pay in compensation to the claimants a
sum of Rs. 9,85,000/-. The aforesaid sum of
money shall carry simple interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of institution
of claim petition, until realization.

34. The sum of money already
deposited with the Tribunal pursuant to the
impugned award, or the interim order passed
by this Court, shall be adjusted against the
award. The other directions of the Tribunal
shall remain intact.

35. In the result, FAFO No. 357 of 2001
is dismissed and Cross Objection No. 70 of
2022 stands partly allowed. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 413
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 1327 of 2015
with
First Appeal from Order No. 1925 of 2015
with
First Appeal from Order No. 1824 of 2016

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kartikey Saran, Sri Ujwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava Sinha,
Sri Vishnu Prakash Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166-U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998-Rule 220 A(3)(i)-Determination of
compensation-Fatal accident case-Deceased
was aged about 28 years-He was proprietor
of Tent House-Rs. 8,73,500/- awarded by
Tribunal-enhancement
sought-monthly
income of deceased at Rs. 8000/- i.e.
96,000 p.a.-Future prospects taken at 50%-
Deducted
one-fourth
towards
personal
expenses of deceased-Multiplier of 17
applied-Total loss of dependency assessed
at Rs. 18,36,000-And also added Rs. 70,000
for
various
damages-Entitlement
to
compensation of Rs. 19,06,000 madeAlongwith interest @ 7% p.a. (Para 1 to 39)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. NIC Vs Pranay Sethi & ors. (2017) 16 SCC
680

2. Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. Vs DTC & anr.
(2009) 6 SCC 121

3. New India Assr. Co. Ltd Vs Urmila Shukla &
ors. (2021) SCC Online SC 822

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The two appeals, namely FAFO
No. 1327 of 2015 and FAFO No. 1925 of
2015 arise out of an award made by the
learned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge,
Allahabad1 in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.816 of 2013 dated 24.03.2015.
The appeals have been filed by the
Insurance Company and the claimants who
are
dependants
of
the
deceased
respectively.

2. The appeal, namely FAFO No.
1824 of 2016 arise out of an award made
by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District
Judge,
Allahabad in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 948 of 2013 dated 17.03.2016
by partly allowing the claim of the injuredclaimant. The instant appeal has been filed
by the injured-claimant.

3. The above said three appeals arise
out of the same accident and are being
decided by a common judgement.

II. Case of the claimants and
respondents before the learned tribunal:

4. Briefly the case of the claimants
before the learned tribunal was that the
deceased Charan Singh died in an accident
on 12.06.2013 which was caused solely by
the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of offending truck bearing Registration No.
UP 70 J 9831. On the fateful day deceased
Charan Singh was driving motorcycle
bearing registration No. UP 73 D 0335 with
Ghanshyam
Singh
riding
pillion.
Ghanshyam
Singh
suffered
grievous
injuries in the said accident. The offending
vehicle
was
insured
by
New
India
Assurance Co. Ltd. The claimants are the
dependants of the deceased. The deceased
was 28 years of age at the time of his death.

III. Compensation awarded by the
learned tribunal

5.
The
learned
tribunal
in
the
impugned award dated 24.03.2015 partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation
which
is
depicted
in
tabulated form hereunder:
Sr.No. Heads
Amount
Awarded
by the tribunal
1.
Monthly
Income (A)
4,000/-
2.
Annual
Income (B)
(Ax12=B)
48,000/-
3.
Future
Prospects
(C)
50% (Rs. 24,000/-)
48,000+24,000=
72,000/-
4.
Deduction
towards
personal
expenses (D)
(1/3 of B)
1/3
of
24,000/-
=72,000-24000/-
=
48,000/-
5.
Annual Loss
of
dependancy
(E)
(B-D =E)
48,000
6.
Multiplier
(F)
18
7.
Total loss of
dependancy(
E x F)
48000
x
18
=
8,64,000/-
2 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors.
415
8.
Conventiona
l Heads
(a) Loss of
consortium
(b) loss of
Estate
(c)
Funeral
Expenses
9500/-
9.
Total
compensatio
n
8,64,000
+
9500
=8,73,500/-
10.
Interest
7%

6. The compensation awarded to the
injured by learned tribunal in the impugned
judgement dated 17.03.2016 is depicted in
tabulated form hereunder:
Sr.No. Heads
Amount
Awarded
by
the tribunal
1.
Medical expenses 1,09,925.19/-
2.
Special diet
6000/-
3.
Grievous injuries 5000/-
4.
Loss of income
6000/-
5.
Total
compensation
1,09,925.19
+
6000 + 5000 +
6000=
1,26,925/-
6.
Interest
7%

7. The appeals filed by the claimants
and
the
injured
respectively
seek
enhancement
of
compensation.
The
Insurance Company in appeals has assailed
the quantum of compensation as being
excessive.

IV. Submissions of learned counsels
for the parties:

8. Shri Ujwal, Advocate holding brief
of Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel
for the appellant-Insurance Company in
FAFO No.1327 of 2015 submits that
though many grounds have been pleaded in
the memo of appeal, only three grounds are
being pressed. Firstly, the tribunal erred in
law by fixing the entire liability on the
appellant-insurance company though it was
a
case
of
contributory
negligence.
Secondly, the income of the deceased was
not established. Thirdly, an incorrect
multiplier was applied to the facts of the
case.

9. Ms. Aruna Singh, learned counsel
holding brief of Mrs. Archana Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company in FAFO No.1824 of 2016,
contests the quantum of compensation as
being excessive awarded by the learned
tribunal to the injured who suffers injuries
in the said accident.

10. Shri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel
for
the
claimants-respondents
refuting the aforesaid submissions and
contends that it was not a case of
contributory negligence and the entire
liability has to be borne by the truck
owner/insurance company. The income of
the deceased was duly established by oral
and documentary evidence, but the learned
tribunal failed to consider the same. The
compensation is liable to be enhanced.

V. Issues for Consideration:

11. After advancing their arguments,
learned counsels for the respective parties
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
agree that only the following questions fall
for consideration in these appeals:

(i) Whether the accident resulted from
contributory negligence from the part of the
driver of the motor vehicle and the
Insurance Company was not liable to pay
the entire amount?

(ii) Whether the learned tribunal while
determining the compensation lawfully
computed the amounts under these heads:
income,
future
prospects,
multiplier,
conventional head.

VI. Issue of contributory negligence

12. The claimants introduced PW-2
Ghanshyam Singh an eye witness to prove
the
accident
and negligence
of
the
offending vehicle. PW-2 Ghanshyam Singh
testified before the learned trial court that
he had witnessed the accident and that the
driver of the offending truck drove rashly
and negligently collided with the rear side
of the motorcycle which the deceased was
driving. The deceased succumbed to the
injuries sustained in the accident. The
testimony of PW-2 was not impeached
under cross examination.

13. The vehicle inspection report
opines that all parts of the motorcycle were
badly damaged.

14. The comprehensive damage to the
motorcycle
is
corroborated
by
the
testimony of PW-2. The deposition of PW2 is consistent with the assertions in the
claim petition.

15. The learned tribunal which had
the advantage of observing the demeanour
of the witness found PW-2 to be reliable
and believed his testimony. There is
nothing in the arguments or the records
which persuades this Court to take a
different view in the matter.

16. Evidence in the record establishes
that sole negligence was that of the
offending truck driver. The deceased
motorcycle driver was driving prudently.
The rash driving and uncontrollable speed
of the offending truck gave the motorcycle
driver no time or opportunity to take
evasive measures to prevent the accident or
save himself. The deceased motorcycle
cannot be faulted for the accident. This is
not a case of contributory negligence. The
driver of the offending truck was solely
culpable for causing the accident, and the
insurance company is fully liable to pay the
compensation.

17. A head on collusion does not ipso
facto mean that it is a case of contributory
negligence. Contributory negligence occurs
when both the parties drive negligently,
flout traffic rules, or fail to observe norms
of safe driving. Contributory negligence
implies that both parties are culpable for
the accident. In such cases, the courts have
to assess the responsibility of each party in
causing the accident, and apportion the
liability on the parties accordingly.

18. The learned tribunal found for the
claimants
and
against
the
insurance
company/truck owner of the offending
vehicle on the issue of culpability for the
accident
and
liability
to
pay
the
compensation. There is no infirmity in the
appraisal of evidence and consideration of
pleadings material in the record by the
learned tribunal. The entire liability to pay
the compensation was rightly and lawfully
fixed upon the insurance company by the
learned tribunal. The findings of the
learned tribunal on this issue are affirmed.

VI. Number of dependants and
deduction towards expenses

19. The dependants of the deceased in
FAFO No. 1925 of 2015 are:
2 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors.
417
Sr.
No.
Name
Age
Relati
on
1.
Ram Sureman
64
Father
2.
Smt. Shivpati
62
Mothe
r
3.
Smt. Sunita Yadav
27
Wife
4.
Krishna Yadav
4
Son

20. Learned counsel for both the
parties agree that the appropriate deduction
in the facts and circumstances of this case
towards personal expenses would be 1/4th
of the income of the deceased.

VII.
Issue
of
Income
of
the
deceased:

21. The wife of the deceased entered
the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that
the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per month
from a private business and Rs. 5,000/- by
selling milk. The issue of income from sale
of milk was not pressed before this Court
by the claimants as there is no evidence to
support the same. The deceased ran a
business under the name and style of Army
Tent House. Number of receipts from the
cash book were introduced as evidence to
establish the income of the deceased. The
PW-1 proved the receipts of Army Tent
House. The said receipts were never
challenged, nor was PW-1 confronted on
the genuineness of the receipts in the
witness box.

22. The learned tribunal in the
impugned award found that in absence of
registration certificate of the said business,
the veracity of the aforesaid receipts was
doubtful. The learned tribunal opined that
the tent house business is not a perennial
business but a seasonal one. The learned
tribunal categorized the deceased as an
unskilled worker and fixed his income @
Rs.4,000/- per month.

23. The learned tribunal neglected to
consider the said receipts of the Army Tent
House. The learned tribunal pivoted its
findings on failure of the claimants to
produce registration certificate of the
business. This approach of the learned
tribunal vitiate the award. Many business in
the country like one of this nature are part
of the informal sector of the economy.
Such
businesses
are
not
very
well
documented. Lack of formal registration of
the business cannot influence determination
of the income of the deceased.

24. I am afraid that the learned
tribunal
was
led
into
error
while
determining the income of the deceased.

25. The receipts of the Army Tent
House
recording
client
orders
and
payments were duly proved. In the absence
of a credible challenge the authenticity of
the receipts cannot be called into question.
The said receipts depict a business that was
of a perennial nature, and that the clientele
was a loyal one. Events and celebrations
are regular features in the society and are
not intermittent fixtures.

26. The tent house business requires
high degrees of organisational, logistical
marketing skills. The fact that the deceased
ran a successful tent business evidences his
entrepreneurial
skills
and
managerial
expertise. The deceased cannot be classed
as an unskilled workman.

27. The exact income of the deceased
is not established by the adduced evidence.
The enquiry of the court will examine
various relevant aspects while assessing the
deceased's income. The notified minimum
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wage is a good start point but not the final
figure.

28. The minimum wage of a skilled
labour at the relevant time as notified by
the State Government was Rs. 6296/- per
month. However, the notified minimum
wages would not give a complete picture in
the facts of the case. The perennial nature
of the business, existence of faithful clients
and the entrepreneurial skills of the
deceased have to be factored in while
determining his income. The testimony of
PW-1 to the extent it has been found to be
reliable will also guide the Court in
evaluating the income of the deceased.

29. In the wake of the preceding
discussion, the Court finds that the income
of the deceased is fixed @ of Rs. 8,000/-
per month.

VIII. Future Prospects

30. The future prospects are liable to
be calculated in accordance with the Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 19982. Rule
220A-3(i) of the Rules is relevant and is
reproduced hereunder:

"(3) The future prospects of a
deceased, shall be added in the actual
salary or minimum wages of the deceased
as under--

(i) Below 40 years of age : 50% of the
salary."

31. The UP Rules, 1998 came up for
consideration before the Supreme Court
in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Urmila Shukla and others3. In Urmila
Shukla (supra) upon consideration of
various judgements including National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others4 held:

"10. The discussion on the point in
Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of
arriving at "just compensation" in terms
of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

11. If an indicia is made available in
the form of a statutory instrument which
affords
a
favourable
treatment,
the
decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken
to have limited the operation of such
statutory provision specially when the
validity of the Rules was not put under
any challenge. The prescription of 15% in
cases where the deceased was in the age
bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay
Sethi cannot be taken as maxima. In the
absence of any governing principle
available in the statutory regime, it was
only in the form of an indication. If a
statutory instrument has devised a
formula which affords better or greater
benefit, such statutory instrument must
be
allowed
to operate
unless
the
statutory instrument is otherwise found
to be invalid." (emphasis supplied)

32. The Rules of the Uttar Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not
under consideration before the Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) or Sarla
Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Company and another5.
Future prospects in Pranay Sethi (supra)
were determined without noticing the
U.P. Rules, 1998. This fact was adverted
to in Urmila Shukla (supra):

"8. It is submitted by Mr. Rao that the
judgment in Pranay Sethi does not show
that the attention of the Court was invited
to the specific rules such as Rule 3(iii)
which contemplates addition of 20% of the
salary as against 15% which was stated as a
measure in Pranay Sethi. In his submission,
since the statutory instrument has been put
in place which affords more advantageous
treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi
2 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Yadav & Ors.
419
ought not to be considered to limit the
application of such statutory Rule."

33. The U.P. Rules,1998 are statutory
in nature and their operation is not stymied
by Pranay Sethi (supra). The U. P. Rules,
1998 have the force of law and shall apply
with full force in appropriate cases. The
U.P. Rules, 1998 are more beneficial for
the claimants than the provisions made in
Pranay Sethi (supra) for them. The
holdings in Pranay Sethi (supra) can not
dilute the advantages conferred by U.P.
Rules, 1998 upon the eligible beneficiaries.

34. The preceding legal backdrops
entitles the claimants-appellants to 50%
enhancement in wages towards future
prospects, consistent with the UP Rules,
1998. The necessary changes in the award
shall be accordingly made.

IX. Multiplier:

35. The age of the deceased was 28
years at the time of his death. Multiplier of
17 has been correctly applied by the
learned tribunal and is in line with Pranay
Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra).

X.
Calculation
of
Conventional
Heads:

36. The amount determined under
conventional heads in the impugned award
is at variance with Pranay Sethi (supra).
The conventional heads were fixed in
Pranay Sethi (supra) by holding as under:

"54.
......The
conventional
and
traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be
determined on percentage basis because
that would not be an acceptable criterion.
Unlike determination of income, the said
heads
have
to
be
quantified.
Any
quantification must have a reasonable
foundation. There can be no dispute over
the fact that price index, fall in bank
interest, escalation of rates in many a field
have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has
been a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise,
there
will
be
extreme
difficulty
in
determination of the same and unless the
thumb rule is applied, there will be
immense variation lacking any kind of
consistency as a consequence of which, the
orders passed by the tribunals and courts
are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we
think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It
seems to us that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- And Rs. 15,000/- respectively."

37. The figure under conventional
heads determined in Pranay Sethi (supra)
shall be applicable to the facts of this case.
The award is modified accordingly.

XII. Interest

38. Interest of 7% and the manner of
payment decided by the learned tribunal is
just and lawful and does not call for
interference.

XII.
Determination
of
Compensation to which claimants are
entitled:

39. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the amount of compensation to
which the claimants are entitled and are
hereby awarded is tabulated hereunder:

i. Date of Accident - 12.06.2013

ii. Name of Deceased - Charan Singh

iii. Age of the deceased - 28 years

iv. Occupation of the Deceased -
Proprietor Tent House

v. Income of the deceased - 8,000/- per
month
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

vi. Name, Age and Relationship of
Claimants with the deceased:
Sr. No.
Name
Age
Relation
1.
Ram Sureman 64
Father
2.
Smt. Shivpati 62
Mother
3.
Smt.
Sunita
Yadav
27
Wife
4.
Krishna
Yadav
4
Son

vii. Computation of Compensation
Sr.
No.
Heads
Amount
(in
Rupees)
1.
Monthly Income
(A)
Rs. 8000/-
2.
Annual
Income
(B)(A x 12 = B)
Rs. 96,000/-
3.
Future Prospects
(C)
50% of 96,000/-
=48,000/-
4.
Annual Income +
Future Prospects
(B+C=D)
96,000+
48,000/-=
1,44,000/-
5.
Deduction
towards personal
expenses (E) (1/4
of D)
1/4
of
1,44,000/-
=
36,000
6.
Annual Loss of
dependancy
(F)
(D-E = F)
1,44,00036000=
1,08,000/-
7.
Multiplier (G)
17
8.
Total
loss
of
dependancy
(F x G)
1,08,000/- x 17
= 18,36,000/-
9.
Conventional
Heads:
(a)
Loss
of
consortium -
(b) Loss of Estate
-
(c)
Funeral
Expenses-
70,000/-
10.
Total
compensation
18,36,000
+
70,000
=
19,06,000/-
11.
Interest
7%

FAFO No. 1824 of 2016 (M/S The
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Ghanshyam Singh Yadav and 2 others)

40. The FAFO No. 1824 of 2016
arises from the compensation paid to the
injured in the accident. The injured has
been
awarded
a
compensation
of
Rs.1,26,925/- towards medical expenses. A
break up of the compensation is as under :-

1. Medical expenses - Rs. 1,09,925/-

2. Special diet and Nourishment - Rs.
6,000/-

3. Grievous injuries - Rs. 5,000/-

4. Loss of income - Rs. 6,000/-

41. In the aforesaid case, the learned
tribunal found that the testimony of the
driver was inconsistent with the pleadings
taken by the insurance company and the
truck owner in the written statement. The
learned Tribunal found that the injured had
2 All. Irshad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
421
sustained grievous injuries in the accident
which led to temporary unemployment.
The injury did not suffer any permanent
disability. The Tribunal has awarded the
compensation
under
various
heads
including
medical
expenses,
grievous
injuries, loss of income, as seen above. The
figures are re-decided in view of the
aforesaid findings. The medical evidences
are corroborated by the records and hence
need no alteration. However the deceased
shall be entitled to the following amounts
under various heads:
Heads
Entitled amount (in
Rupees)
1. Special diet and
nourishment
20,000/-
2. Loss of income
30,000/-
3. Grievous injuries
20,000/-p
4. Interest
7%

The award dated 17.03.2016 which is
the subject matter of FAFO 1824 of 2016 is
modified accordingly.

XIII. Conclusion & Directions:

42. In view of the above, the appeal
filed by the Insurance Company viz. First
Appeal From Order No. - 1824 of 2016 is
dismissed.

43. The appeal filed by Insurance
Company and the claimants viz. First
Appeal From Order No.- 1327 of 2015 and
First Appeal From Order No. 1925 of 2015
are partly allowed to the extent set out in
the judgment.

44. The amount of compensation
which the claimants have been awarded
shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company within a period of three months
before the learned tribunal. Thereafter the
learned tribunal shall release the amount to
the claimants without delay. The amount
already disbursed to the claimants (if any)
shall be adjusted.

45. The amount deposited by the
Insurance Company before this Court shall
be transmitted to the learned tribunal which
shall release the same in favour of the
claimants as part of the compensation
determined in this appeal.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 421
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 2710 of 1984

Irshad Ahmad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Arpit Agrawal, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sri B.D.
Misra, Sri R.B.D. Mishra, Sri R.G. Prasad, Sri R.S.
Mishra, Sri S. Hasnain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Nagaich(S.C.), Sri Amit Kumar, Sri R.N.
Singh, Sri R.N. Singh, Sri S.N. Singh

A. Civil Law -Civil Procedure Code,1908Section
11-Res-judicata-Judgment
of
Revenue Court in appeal while remanding
matter to Court of first instance in suit
filed by plaintiff u/s 229-B, operating as
res judicata in present suit for injuction
about nature of land does not ariseJudgment of Addl. Commissioner in
appeal arising from declaratory suit earlier
instituted by plaintiff is res judicata
between plaintiff and defendants on point