# AMRfl'SAGAR GUPTA & ORS v. SUDESH BEHARI LAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 1002
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-03-13
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amrfl-sagar-gupta-ors-v-sudesh-behari-lal-ors-4831
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

B
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 11-Res Judicata-Suit
agrnnst mana11er of Joint Hindu family-No •flegation that he was being
10 sued--Coparceners not. parties-Decree if operates as
res
judicata
"Qzainst coparceners.
A suit between J the father of appellants and B the father of respon·
dents, each claiming possession of the suit properties on the strength of
an alleged gift deed in his favour, was decreed in favo•1r of J and the
decree was confirmed by"" this Court.
After various attempts by B and
aftet his death by his sons, to defeat J's rights, one of B's sons filed a suit
for partition of the suit properties on the allegation that they were gifted
to the joint family of whjclt B was the karta.
On the queition whether the decree in the earlier suit
operated
as
res iudicatc.
HELD : It is not necessary in order that a decree against a manager
may operate as res judicata against coparceners who were not parties to
the earlier suit, that the plaint or written statement should state in express
terms that he was suing or was being sued as a manager.
It is sufficient
if the manager was in fact suing or was being sued as representing the
whole family.
A suit by or against the manager will be deemed to be
one brought by or against him a~ representing the family if the circumM
stances show that be was the manager and the property involved in the
suit was family property. (1004 H; 1005 A·B]
In the present case, B must be deemed to have been sued in the pre·
vious suit as the karta of his famil}, because : (a) the alleged gift in
favour of the joint family was at a time when all the sons of B were
minors and if true the gift could have been accepted by B only as the
karta; (b) there was no conflict of interest between B and hls sons
and
there was no allegation that B did not safeguard the family's interest
while cimtesting the previous suit; and ( c) B did not claim in the earlier
suit that the gift was to him in his individual capacity. [1004 A.C; 1005 CJ
Lalchand v. Sheogovind,
(1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 788, Ram Kishan v.
Ganga Ram, (1931) I.L.R. 12 Lah. 428, Prithipal v. Ramesh war, ( 1927)
I.L.R. 2 Luck. 288, Surendranath v. Sambhunath, (1928) I.L.R. 55 Cal.
210, Mulgaurrd Co-operative Credit Sociny v. Shidlingappa Ishwarappa,
I.L.R. (1941) Born. 682, Venkatanaraycna v. Somaraju, A.I.R. 1937 Mad.
610 (F.B) and Mani Sahoo v. Lokanath, A.I.R. 1950 Or. 140, referred
to.

## Text

AMRfl'SAGAR GUPTA & ORS.
A
v.
SUDESH BEHAR! LAL & ORS.
March 13, 1969
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 11-Res Judicata-Suit
agrnnst mana11er of Joint Hindu family-No •flegation that he was being
10 sued--Coparceners not. parties-Decree if operates as
res
judicata
"Qzainst coparceners.
A suit between J the father of appellants and B the father of respon·
dents, each claiming possession of the suit properties on the strength of
an alleged gift deed in his favour, was decreed in favo•1r of J and the
decree was confirmed by"" this Court.
After various attempts by B and
aftet his death by his sons, to defeat J's rights, one of B's sons filed a suit
for partition of the suit properties on the allegation that they were gifted
to the joint family of whjclt B was the karta.
On the queition whether the decree in the earlier suit
operated
as
res iudicatc.
HELD : It is not necessary in order that a decree against a manager
may operate as res judicata against coparceners who were not parties to
the earlier suit, that the plaint or written statement should state in express
terms that he was suing or was being sued as a manager.
It is sufficient
if the manager was in fact suing or was being sued as representing the
whole family.
A suit by or against the manager will be deemed to be
one brought by or against him a~ representing the family if the circumM
stances show that be was the manager and the property involved in the
suit was family property. (1004 H; 1005 A·B]
In the present case, B must be deemed to have been sued in the pre·
vious suit as the karta of his famil}, because : (a) the alleged gift in
favour of the joint family was at a time when all the sons of B were
minors and if true the gift could have been accepted by B only as the
karta; (b) there was no conflict of interest between B and hls sons
and
there was no allegation that B did not safeguard the family's interest
while cimtesting the previous suit; and ( c) B did not claim in the earlier
suit that the gift was to him in his individual capacity. [1004 A.C; 1005 CJ
Lalchand v. Sheogovind,
(1929) I.L.R. 8 Pat. 788, Ram Kishan v.
Ganga Ram, (1931) I.L.R. 12 Lah. 428, Prithipal v. Ramesh war, ( 1927)
I.L.R. 2 Luck. 288, Surendranath v. Sambhunath, (1928) I.L.R. 55 Cal.
210, Mulgaurrd Co-operative Credit Sociny v. Shidlingappa Ishwarappa,
I.L.R. (1941) Born. 682, Venkatanaraycna v. Somaraju, A.I.R. 1937 Mad.
610 (F.B) and Mani Sahoo v. Lokanath, A.I.R. 1950 Or. 140, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 349 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 17, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at
Delhi in R.F.A. No. 164-C of 1963.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
AMRITSAGAR v. SUDESH BEHAR! (Hegde, J.)
1003
S. Y. Gupte and A. N. Goyal. for the appellants.
C. B . .Agarwala, H. K. Puri and B. N. Kirpal, for respondent
No. 1.
-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. The only question that arises for decision in this
appeal by special leave is whether the suit from which this appeal
has arisen is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in
Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943.
The trial court answered that question in the affirmative but the High Court has taken a contrary
view.
Hence this appeal.
The facts of the case leading up to this appeal, briefly stated,
are as follows :
Qne Krishen Gopal had lease-hold rights in the suit properties. After the death of the aforesaid Krishen Gopal dispute
arose between Jawala Prashad, the father of the appellants and
Banwari Lal Verma, the
father of the respondents as to the
title of the suit properties.
Each one of them claimed that those
properties had been gifted to him by Krishen Gopal.
As a re·
suit of this dispute Jawala Prashad instituted on January 20,
1943, Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943 against Banwari Lal Verma
claiming possession of the suit properties on the strength of the
alleged gift in his favour.
In defence Banwari Lal Verma pleaded that those properties had been gifted to him by Krishen
Gopal.
The principal issue that arose for decision in that suit
was whether the suit properties had been gifted to
Jawala
Prashad or Banwari Lal Verma.
The trial court dismissed the
suit but in appeal the decree of the trial court was reversed and '
the suit was decreed as prayed for.
That decision was confirm-·
ed by the High Court and thereafter by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 1953.
After the decision of this Court Banwari
Lal Verma made various applications to this Court asking for
reliefs which if they had been granted, would have practically
nullified the effect of the decree but those applications were rejected by this Court.
Thereafter efforts appear to have
been· made to obstruct the execution of the decree in diverse
ways.
When everyone ol. those-efforts failed Rangi Lal Verma,
the eldest son of Banwari Lal Verma filed a suit praying for a
declaration that the suit properties belonged to his joint family
consisting of Banwari Lal Verma and his sons.
This suit was
dismissed for non-prosecution. It is only thereafter the present
suit has been filed by one of the sons of Banwari Lal Verma
claiming partition in the smt properties on the allegation that
the same had been gifted by Krishcn Gopal to his joint family.
1004
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.ll.
The gift put torward by the plaintiff is said to have been
made in 1928.
Admittedly at that time all the sons of Banwari
Lal Verma were minors (see the affidavit filed in this Court by
Rangi Lal on behalf of the plaintiff, on February 26, 1969
Therefore, naturally the gift, if true could have been accepted
only by Banwari Lal Verma who was the Karta of the family
at that time.
It was not even urged that Banwari Lal Verma
did not safeguard the interest of his family while contesting the
previous suit.
Further it is not the case of the respondents that
there was any confiict of interest between Banwari Lal Verma
and his sons.
The facts disclosed make it obvious that Banwari
Lal Verma and after his death his sons are availing themselves
of every possible loophole in our judicial system to delay, if not
defeat the course of justice. The effon is one and continuous.
The suit from which this appeal has arisen is a clear abuse of
judicial process. It is in this setting that we· have to see whether
the decision in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943 operates as res iiulicata
in the present case.
In the Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943, there was no room for controversy as to whether the alleged gift was in favour of Banwari
Lal Verma in his individual capacity or in his favour as
the
Karta of his family.
Therein the controversy was whether the
suit properties had been gifted to J awala Prashad or Banwari
Lal Verma.
As seen earlier Banwari Lal Yerma pleaded that
they had been gifted in his favour.
He did not make it clear
nor was it necessary for him to do so in that suit as to whether
they were gifted to hiμi as the Karta of the family or in his individual capacity.
The properties that were in dispute· in the
former suit as well as in the present suit are identical properties.
It cannot be disputed that Banwari Lal Verma by himself could
have represented his family in that suit. That suit must be deemed
to have been instituted against Banwari Lal Verma in that capacity
in which he claimed title to it. If his claim in that suit is
understood to have been made on behalf of his' family then he
must be deemed to have been sued therein as the Karta of his
family.
It was for Banwari Lal Verma to make clear the capacity in which he was defending the suit.
That being so we fail
to appreciate the conclusion of the High Coun that the decision
in the previous suit does not operate as res judicata in the present suit.
It is not necessary, in order that a decree against the manager may operate as res-judicata against coparceners who were
not parties to the suit that the plaint or written statement should
stllte in express terms that he is suing as manager or is being sued
as a manager. It is sufficient if the manager was in fact suing or
being sued .as representing the whole family, sec La/chand v.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
AMRITSAGAR v. SUDESH BEHAR! (Heide, /.)
1005
Sheogovind('); Ram Kishan v.
Ganga Ram('); Prithipal v.
Rameshwar('); Surendranath v. Sambhunath(').
The suit by or against the manager will deemed to be one
brought ·by him or against him as representing the family if the
circumstances of the case show that he is the manager of the
family and the property involved in the suit is family property,
see Mulgaund Co-operative Credit Society v. Shidlingappa lshwarappa('). See also Ven;kakanarayana v. Somaraju('). It is not
not necessary, where the manager is the plaintiff, that the plaint
should state in distinct terms that he is suing as manager
or
where he is the defendant that he is being sued as manager.
A
Karta can represent the family effectively in proceeding though
he is not named as such, see Mani Sahoo v. Lokanath(1 ).
For the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed and
the judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that
of the trial court restored.
The respondent shall pay the costs
of the appellants in all the courts.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowtd.
(1) (1929)1.L.R.8, Pat. 788.
(2)(1931)1.L.R.12. Loh .• 28.
(3) (1927) l.L.R. 2, LQck. 288.
(4) (1928) I.LR. 55, Cal. 210.
(5) [1941] I.L.R. Born. 682,
(6) A.I.R, \937 Mad. 610 (F.B.),
(7) A.I.R, 19500r.140.