# BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS v. RISAL SINGH & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 217
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendr."-Gadiur Raghubar Day.Al
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/baljeet-singh-others-v-risal-singh-others-2373
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

and
Civil Procedure-Res judicata-Twelve suits against four sets
of defenda .. ts-Decreed by common judgment-Twelve app<alsAppeals by one set of defendants dismissed for default-Whether
other appeals barred-Appeals to Supreme Court-Consolidation
Operations-If make appeals infructuous-U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, (U.P. V of 1954).
K, H and M filed four suits each against four sets of
defendants in respect of different sets of plots under s. 175
U. P.
~renancy. Act, 1939. Since similar points were involved
the twelve suits were tried together and were disposed of by a
common judgment decreeing them. Twelve decrees wCre
prepared and the defendants preferred twelve appeals to the
Additional Commissioner. Three appeals by one set of the
defendants B were dismissed for default and the remaining
nine were dismissed on merits. Against the dismissal of the
nine appeals on merits the three sets of defendants preferred
nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue but they were
dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954. In
November, 1954, the appellants filed petitions for special leave
before the Supreme Court and on April 18,
1~55, special
leave was granted. In July 1954, the villages in which the
lands in suit were situate came under consolidation operations
onder the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the
operations were completed by the publication of a notification
19!2
T/,, 81atnf
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Shonk.,
K•ftur J.
1963
19C:!
Baljttl ~ingh
v.
Uisal Singh
. 218 St:l'R_g:\IE COCRT REPOltTS [1962) St:Pl'.
under s. 52 of the Act on October 17, 195:). The appdlants
did not file any objections before the consolidation authorities.
The respondent contended that in vic\v of the consolidation
operations the appeals before the Supreme Court had become
infructuous.
Held, that the appeals had not becon1c
infructuous.
There , .. •as nothing in the L'. P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,
1953~ as it stou<l <luring the period the \·illage in su.it
was under consolidation operations \\·bich could have in any
'vay affected these appeals, during
c :r after the consolidation
operations. The subsequent 1\1ncnding 1\cts di<l not ;iffcct the
appeals as they wr.re prospective in operation and applird
only to cases 'vherc the consolidation operations \Vere started
after the Amending Acts had come into force.
Heid, further
that the appeals before the Board of
Revenue were not barred by resjudicrtfa. It was essential for
the bar of res judicuta that the previous adjudication must
have been bet\veen the same parties. The three suits in which
judgments had becorne final \Vere against one B and not against
auy of the appellants. The matter in issue in those three suits
\\las different from that i11 the other nine suits as each of the
suits related to different plots. The common judgment was
really t\"Velve judgments in the t\velve suits.
Hudri iYarayan Singh v. Kmnrleo Prasad Singh, ( 1962)
3. S. C. R. 759 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLAn; JumsnrcTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. ()7 to 7 5 of 195!!.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated l\Iay 7, 1954 of the U.P. Board of
Rcvenur, in Second Appeals Nos. 53 to 61 of
1945·46.
S. P. Sinha, J.P. Goyul and Sadhu Singh, for
the appellants.
Bislw.n Narain and K. L. Afelita, for the
respondents.
1962.
February 15.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-Thcse nine appeals,
by special leave, are against the orders of the
Board of Revenue, Utta.r Pradesh, dismissing nine
3 S.C.R.
SUPR:tl]ME COURT'REPORTd
219
second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that
the orders of the First Appellate Court in three
other connected first appeals had become final and
operated as res judicata.
Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh,
Hoshiar Singh arid Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these
brothers
instituted four suits.
Hoshiar Singh
instituted
suit No. 48
of 1944
under s. l 75
of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. XVII of 1939),
ag

## Text

3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217,
Appellate Court to commit is not ci.rcumscribed to
oases oxclusively triable b5 a court of Session and
the High Court was in error in taking a contrary
view.
We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the
order of the High Court and restore that of the
Sessions J utlge.
Appwl allowed.
BALJEET SINGH & OTHERS
v.
RISAL SINGH & OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDR."-GADIUR
RAGHUBAR DAY.AL, JJ.)
and
Civil Procedure-Res judicata-Twelve suits against four sets
of defenda .. ts-Decreed by common judgment-Twelve app<alsAppeals by one set of defendants dismissed for default-Whether
other appeals barred-Appeals to Supreme Court-Consolidation
Operations-If make appeals infructuous-U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953, (U.P. V of 1954).
K, H and M filed four suits each against four sets of
defendants in respect of different sets of plots under s. 175
U. P.
~renancy. Act, 1939. Since similar points were involved
the twelve suits were tried together and were disposed of by a
common judgment decreeing them. Twelve decrees wCre
prepared and the defendants preferred twelve appeals to the
Additional Commissioner. Three appeals by one set of the
defendants B were dismissed for default and the remaining
nine were dismissed on merits. Against the dismissal of the
nine appeals on merits the three sets of defendants preferred
nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue but they were
dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954. In
November, 1954, the appellants filed petitions for special leave
before the Supreme Court and on April 18,
1~55, special
leave was granted. In July 1954, the villages in which the
lands in suit were situate came under consolidation operations
onder the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the
operations were completed by the publication of a notification
19!2
T/,, 81atnf
Uttar Pradesh
v.
Shonk.,
K•ftur J.
1963
19C:!
Baljttl ~ingh
v.
Uisal Singh
. 218 St:l'R_g:\IE COCRT REPOltTS [1962) St:Pl'.
under s. 52 of the Act on October 17, 195:). The appdlants
did not file any objections before the consolidation authorities.
The respondent contended that in vic\v of the consolidation
operations the appeals before the Supreme Court had become
infructuous.
Held, that the appeals had not becon1c
infructuous.
There , .. •as nothing in the L'. P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act,
1953~ as it stou<l <luring the period the \·illage in su.it
was under consolidation operations \\·bich could have in any
'vay affected these appeals, during
c :r after the consolidation
operations. The subsequent 1\1ncnding 1\cts di<l not ;iffcct the
appeals as they wr.re prospective in operation and applird
only to cases 'vherc the consolidation operations \Vere started
after the Amending Acts had come into force.
Heid, further
that the appeals before the Board of
Revenue were not barred by resjudicrtfa. It was essential for
the bar of res judicuta that the previous adjudication must
have been bet\veen the same parties. The three suits in which
judgments had becorne final \Vere against one B and not against
auy of the appellants. The matter in issue in those three suits
\\las different from that i11 the other nine suits as each of the
suits related to different plots. The common judgment was
really t\"Velve judgments in the t\velve suits.
Hudri iYarayan Singh v. Kmnrleo Prasad Singh, ( 1962)
3. S. C. R. 759 referred to.
CIVIL APPELLAn; JumsnrcTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. ()7 to 7 5 of 195!!.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated l\Iay 7, 1954 of the U.P. Board of
Rcvenur, in Second Appeals Nos. 53 to 61 of
1945·46.
S. P. Sinha, J.P. Goyul and Sadhu Singh, for
the appellants.
Bislw.n Narain and K. L. Afelita, for the
respondents.
1962.
February 15.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-Thcse nine appeals,
by special leave, are against the orders of the
Board of Revenue, Utta.r Pradesh, dismissing nine
3 S.C.R.
SUPR:tl]ME COURT'REPORTd
219
second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter mentioned, on the ground that
the orders of the First Appellate Court in three
other connected first appeals had become final and
operated as res judicata.
Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh,
Hoshiar Singh arid Mukhtiar Singh. Each of these
brothers
instituted four suits.
Hoshiar Singh
instituted
suit No. 48
of 1944
under s. l 75
of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. XVII of 1939),
against one Bhartu, suit No.49 against Har Gyan,
Mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram, sons of Sis ltam,
brother of Bhartu, suit No.50 against Har Gyan and
Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Sis Ram, and suit No. 51
against one Banwari. Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos. 63, 61, 60 and 62 against similar
defendents respectively.
Mukhtiar Singh's suits
against those defendents;respectively, were Nos167,
65, 64 and 66. Each of these suits was for different
sets of plots. The allegations of the plaintiffs ineach suit and the contentions of the defendent in
each suit were similar and therefore similar issues
were framed in each suit and all the suits were
tried together and were disposed of by one common
judgment. Twelve decrees were, however, prepared.
Against the twelve decrees the defendants-judgment debtors in each decree filed twelve first
, appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division. The Additional Commissioner dismissed three appe&ls for default, These
were the appeals which were filed against Hoshiar
Singh, Karam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by Banwari.
The Additional Commissioner heard the remain·
ing nine appeals un merits and dismissed them. The
defendants-judgment debtors then filed nine second
appeals before the Board of Revenue.
They
were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May
7' 1954.
The applications for special leave were filed in
this Court in November 1954. Special leave was
1962
Baljeet Bin(Jh
v.
Ri1al Singh
Raghubar Dayal J.
I
1962
Baljttl Sinth
v.
Risol Singh
Jt.,~ar v..,.1·J.
220 SU.l:'Rl:llll: COlJ}{.1' HElOHTS [l!H1~J st:PJ:>.
granted on April 18, l9:i5.
By the time the appeals
came up for hearing, some other events took place
and as a result of them the respondents filed an
application for adducing additional evidence under
O • .XLV, rr.J to 5, Supreme Court gules in ~ovem
ber 195\!, and also mcluded in their statement of
case a narration of those events and their effect.
It appears that the villages in "hich the lands
in suit were situate, come under Consolidation
Operations under the U.l'. Con~olidation of Holdings Act, l!l.'ia( U. P. V of 1954 ), hereinafter callccl the
Act, sometime in July 1954, when a declaration was
issued by the State Government under s.4 of the
Act to the effect that it had been decided to make
a Scheme of consolidation fur that area. In
December 1954, a statement of plots and t<1nure
holders waa prepared and in J\Iay HJ55 a statement
of proposals under s.19 'was prepared; in August
11155 final otatements in chak form 25 were issued.
On October 17, J!J55, the State Government publi1hod a notification under s.52 of the Act.
Section 52 of the Act thon read :
"As soon as may be aftu tho tenure-holders
have entered into possession of their new
holding in pursuance of l:Scction 2ti, the t:itate
Government shall issue a notification in the
Official Gazette that the Coneolidation operations have been closed in the village and the
village shall then c"ase to be under consolidation operation."
It is thus seen that this village remained under
Consolidation operations from some time in July
1954 to October 1 i, 1955.
The appellants did not file any objection8
before the Consolidation authorities under s.12 of
the Act disputing tho correctness or tho nature of
the entries in the statement prepared under s.11
or under s.20 against the atate ment of proposals
prepared under s.l!I.
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
221
Section 2t provides for the fixing of a date
for the enforcement of the consolidation scheme.
Section 25 provides for the issuing of the allotment
order showing the new fields allotted to each
tenure-holder in accordance with the said scheme.
Section 26 provides for the tenure-holders to enter
into possession of th~ fields allotted to them ·on or
after a certain date. Section 27 provides for the
pr<'paration of new village maps, khasra and the
record-of-rights, in accordance with the provisions
of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Its sub-s.(2)
provides that all entries in the record-of.rights
prepared under sub-s.( l) shall be final and conclusive.
Section 30 provides that the rights, title, interest a.nd liabilities of the tenure holder in his original
holding shall be extinguished and he will have the
same rights, title, interest and liabilities subject to
modification, if any, in the plots allotted to him
under s.25 with effect from the date on which he
enters into possession of the plots allotted to him.
It was contended for 'the respondents that in
view of these consolidations operation and s.5 of
the Act, as amended up to date, these appeals have
become infructuous as this Court cannot pass any
orders ou the.merits of the controversy. The Act
has been amended several times since it was originally enacted.
The various amending Acts are: Act
XXVI of 1934 which came into force on ·December
13, 1954; Act XIII of 1955 which came into force on
June 10, 1955; Act XX of 1955 whfohcame into force
on October 21, 1955; Act XXIV of 1956 which
came into force on July 3, 1956; Act XVI of 1957
which came into force on May 25, 1957 and Act
XXXVIII of 1958 which came into force on November 19, 1958.
During the perio:l the village in suit was
under Consolidation Operations. the Act applicable
1962
Baljtet Singh
••
Biaal Singh
Baghubor Df!1a/ J.'
1962
Baljeet 8in.f!h
••
Risa! Singh
Raghubo1 Dayal J,
222
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
to the proceedings was the Original Act.as amended
by Acts XXVr of l!J54 and XIII of 1955. The
other Acts came into force subser1uent to tho issue
of the notification under s.;i2 of the Act.
It is
11cces~ary to bear this in mind in vi<,"\\' of the contentions raised.
Section ii of Act V of 1954 was as follows :
"(\) Upon the publication of the declaration
nnder ~ection 4, the district or the local area, as
the case may be, shall be deemed to he under
consolidation operations from the date of such
publication until this publi~ation of the ~oti
fication
under section
52
in the official
Gazette to the effect that the consolidation
operations hnve been closed.
(2) Where a district or any other local
arna is under consolirlatfon opnations, the
duty of preparing and maintaining the maps,
the khasra and the annual register under
Chapter III of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
HlO I, shall stand transferred to the Sett lenwnt Officer (Consolidaticm), and thereupon
all the powers conferred on the Collector,
Assistant Co!leeter and the Tahsildar under
the said Chapter shall, AO long a• that district
or the area remains
1111(\cr consoliclation
operations. he exercised reAfll'ctively by the
Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Consolidation Officer ancl the Assist.ant Consolidation
Officer.''
Act XXVI of I 9G4 deleted the last port.ion of
Aub·R.(21 commeneiug from the words 'and thereupon'.
No chn.nge in this Aection was made by the
Am0.nding Act XIII of I \lf>ii.
There was therefore
nothing in thiA sectioi1 which in any way won!? have
affecter! th<> hearing of. these appeals, tlurmg or
after the consoli<lation operations.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223
Section 12 of Act V of 1954 provided for the
pJblication of the statement of plots and tenure
holders prepared under s. ll and for filing objections
disp!lting tb.e correctness or nature of entries in it.
Its sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) were :
" ( 4) Where the objection filed under
sub-section (l) involves a question of title and
suc):i question has not already been determined
by a competent court, the Consolidation Officer
shall refer the question for determination to
the Arbitrator.
( 5) All suits or proceedings in the court
of first instance or appeal in which a question
of title in relation to same land bas been
raised, shall be stayed.
(6)
The decision of the Arbitrator under
sub-section (4) shall be final."
There was nothing in these sub-sections which
provided as to how the snits or proceedings stayed
been under sub-section (5) would be decided or bow
matters in connection of which no objection bad
raised under s.12 would be dealt with. These provisions too did not affect the pending Appeals as no
objection had been filed under s.12.
Act XXVI of 1954 amended sub-s.(4) to the
effect that the objection coming under sub-s.( 4)
would be referred to the Civil Judge, who will then
refer it to the Arbitrator, and substituted another
sub-section in the place of original sub-s.(5). The
substituted sub-s.(5) read :
"( 5) Upon the making of reference under
sub-section (4) all suits or proceedings in the
Court of first instance, appeal, reference or
revision, in which the· question of title in
relation to the same land has been raised,
shall be stayed."
This amendment in sub-s.(5) stayed the suits and
•
1961
Baljtet Singh
••
Riso.l Singh
Ra:hubar Dayal J.
1962
Bo/jut SU.gh
••
Risal Singh
224
SUPRE'.\fE OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
proceedings not only in the Courts of the first ins·
tance an<l appeal bnt also in the ConrtR of reference
and rovision, but did not affect these appeals .
Snb-R.(2) of e.27 as originally enacted, wns
not amenrfod up to the 17t.h October, l!ln5. Its
1m b-s.(2) mR<le the entries in the record of rights
prepared nnder sub-s.(1)
fin11.I and concluRive.
We arc not concerned wit.h its effect in these
appcalR.
Section 49 of the Act bars the juriRdiction of
Civil Courts.
ThiR section, heforn its RmAndment
bv Act XTIT of l!l55, which came into force on
.Ti.me 10, J 9n!i, did not bar the institution of a suit
or procPedings int.he revenue conrt. Tt di<l ~o after
the am~ndment. TheR'l appeals hail been filed Jong
before the amenilment.
We may st.ate that no objection was raised on
behalf of the respondent to the effect that these
appeals could not ha vo been instituted, but we have
discussed that matter, in view of the fact that the
appeals wne filpd after the State Government had
made a decll~ration under s.4 of the Act.
We have not been referred to any provision
in these A~ts. viz..
Act V of 1954, Act XXVI of
1954 and Ad XIII of 1955 which would lead to the
nonclusion that these appeals have become infrnc·
tuous.
Act XX of 1955 made an amendment in s.27
of the Act. The amP.ndment however does not
affect the question hofore us.
Act XXIV of 1956 which came into force on
Julv 3, 1956, Rnbstituted a new section 5 in the
pl•ce of the old. The substituted section 5 read :
•
"5. When the <lcelaration under ~e<'tion
4 has been published in the Gazette, the
consequences 11.s hereinafter set fort.h eh11ll,
-
"
.
:I S.C.R.
SUPREME coURT REPokts .
22~
from the date specified thereunder till the
publication of the notification under section
52 in the Official Gazette to the effect that
the consolidation operations have been closed,
ensue in the area to which the declaration
relates, namely ;
(a) the district or the local area, as the case
may be, shall be deemed to be under
consolidation operations from the specified da.te, and the duty of preparing and
maintaining the khasra and the annual
Register under Chapter III of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall stand
transferred to the Settlement Officer
(Consoiidation), and
( b) all proceedings for the correction of any
such records pending before any court or
authority shall be stayed but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected
to agitate the question before the Assistant
Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3)
of Section 8, or in proceedings commenced
under and in accordance with section 10."
Clearly, cl. (b) does not apply to these appeals as
they have not arisen out of proceedings for the
correction of village records.
Act XXIV of 1956 made certain amendments
in s. 11 'with which we are not concerned. We are
not also concerned with the amendments this Act
made in sub-s. (1) of s. 12. It substituted a new
sub-section (5) and added sub-s. (7). These new subsections (5) and (7) are :
"(5) Upon the publication of the statement under section 11, all suits or proceedings
in the Court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision, in which the question of title
in respect of anJ plot mentioned in the statement with reference to clause (c) of sub-section (I) of section II has been raised, shall be
196:/
Ba!Jeet Singh
•
Risal Singh
Roghubar Dayal J.
1P62
BaljuJ S in1h
••
Risal ~i11gh
R aghubar Da>Jal J.
~26 SUPREME CoURT REPORTS [1962) SDP~.
stayed to the extent it relates to such plot
and shall thereafter be disposed of in
the
manner prescribed .
(7)
A qucBtion of t.itle in respect of a11y
plot mentioned in the statement in clause ( c)
of sub-section I of section ll, which might
and ought to have been raised under subsection (I) but had uot been raised, shall not
be raised in any objection filed
under subsection ( 2) of section 20, or under sub-seetion
(I) of section 34."
It is for the first time that such suits and pro-
•
ceedings in the various Courts had to be stayed iu
which a question of title in respect r,f any plot mentioned in the statement with reference to ol. ( c) of
1ub-s. ( 1) of s. 11 had been raised and that these
stayed suits or proceedings were to bo decided sub-
. sequently in the manner prescribed, i. e., in the manner laid down under rules framed under the Act.
Those provisions of aub-s. (5) do not affect the appeals as they were prospective in operation and could
apply to those cases only in which statements
under s. 11 were filed aftor the amondm.,nt had been
ma.de.
The amendments rnado by tho other sections
of this Act and Act XVI of 1957, do not affect the
hearing of the appeals in any way.
Thereafter case Act XX XVIII of I 958. This
Act again substituted a new s. 5, and the relevant
portion of the substituted section reads:
5. Upon the publication of the notification under section 4 in the Official Gazette,
the consequences, as hereinafter
sot forth,
shall, subject to th11 provisions of this Act.,
from the date specified
thereunder till the
publication of notification under section 52 or
sub-section (1) of section 6, as the caae may -
I
-
3 s.c.h.
!"_,.
·~
•'.'._'1·i~t'~-~
SUPREME OOUR'l' REPOR'l'S
227
be, ensue in the area to which the declaration
relates; namelyx
x
x
x
x
(b) (I) rill
proceedings
for
correcti~n of
the records and all suits for
declarat10n of
rights and interest over land , or f('.r possession of land or for partition, pendmg before
any authority or court, whether of first instance, appeal or reference or revision, shall
stand stayed, but without prejudice to the
right of the persons affected to
agit~te the
right or interests in dispute in the said proceedings or suits before the consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder:
(ii) the findings of consolidation authorities in proceedings under this Act in respect
of such right or interest in the land, shall be
acceptable to the authority or court before
whom the proceeding or suit was pending
which may, on communication thereof by the
parties concerned, proceed with the proceeding or suit, as the case may be;"
These provisions operate prospectively. The
consequences mentioned in s. 5 ensue upon the
publication of the notification under s. 4 in the
Gazette and continue up to the publication of the
notification under s. 52.
They do not
continuii
thereafter and could not operate on these cases in
which the notification under s. 52 was issued on the
17th October 1955.
They do not therefore bar the
hearing of these appeals. These appeals have not
therefore become infructuous.
·
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10,. II, II-A, 11-B, 12, 1'2-A,
12-B, 12-C and 12-D have been substituted by new
Sflction which apply to proceedings taken in consolidatio11 operations subsequent to the coming into force
of the Amending Act XXXVIII of 1858. Sub-s. (l) of
1_962
Baljeet Singh
v.
Risal Si~gh
Roglwbar Dayal J.
iJalju• Sinth
...
Iliaol Singh
lia4huja< Dayal J.
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
s. 12 makes it clear that the matters mentioned in
that sub-sect~on cannot bo raised subsequent to the
date of notification under s. 52 •
There has been no material change made in
ss. 27 and 30, buts. 49 now reads:
"49. Notwithstanding anything contained iu any other law for the time being in force
the declaration and adjudication of rights of
tenure holders in respect of land lying in an
area, for which a declaration has been issued
under section 4, or adjudication of any other
right arising out of consolidation proceedings
and in regard to which a proceeding could pr
ought to have been taken under this Act, shall
be done in accordance with the provisions of
this Act and no civil or revenue court shall
entertain any suit or pror,ceding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to
any other matters for which a proceeding
could or ought to have been taken under this
Act."
This now provides that the adjudication of
rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in
an area under consolidation operations shall be done
in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
This
leads practically to the same result to which cl. (ii I
of sub-a. (b) of s. 5 leads to. The provisions of
this section are not expressly limited to the period
between the declaration under s. ~and the notification under s. 52, hut can be so construed as thev
relate back to s. 5 (b) (ii) of the Act as the <leclar~
tion and adjudication of rights havo to be done in
accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Further
the amended provision would apply to the proceedings regarding rights in land in the area for which
R. declaration under s. 4 has been issued after the
amendment.
We are therefore of opinion that these appeals have not becomo infructuous.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
229
On the merits, we are of opinion that the
Board of Revenue erred in holding that the appeals
before it were barred by res jU!licata. It is essential for any previous adjudication of a point to bar
its consideration second time that -the previous adjudication must have been between the same part·
ies and that it be with respect to the same matter.
The three suits in which judgments became final
were against one Banwari and not against any of
the present appellants. The matter in issue in those
three suits were also different from that in the
suits which have given rise to these appeals. Each
of the twelve suits related to different plots. A
common judgment on account of similar questions
b'eing raised for _decision in the different suits, does
not always make that judgment amount to one
judgment in those suits. Such a judgment will
ordinarily be deemed to be really so many judg·
ments as the suits disposed of by it. This Court
expressed a similar view in Badri Narayan Singh v.
Kamdeo Prasad Singh(').
We therefore allow the appeals, set aside the
order of the Court below and remand the appeals
to it for further hearing and decision according to
law. We m11.y. make it clear that it can take into
consideration the effect of the Consolidation Act
and proceedings thereunder, after giving an opportunity to ·the parties to submit what they like in
regard to them costs to abide the result.
·
Appeals allowed.
(I) [1962] 3 S. C.R. 759.
1961
BalJ<el Sin11h
v.
Rhal Singh
Raghuhar Dayal J.