# Y. B. PATIL AND ORS v. Y. L. PATIL

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 320
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1968
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, N. L. Untwalia, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/y-b-patil-and-ors-v-y-l-patil-6923
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226, whether concurrent findings of facts by the
lf.evenue Authorities, can be reopened in writ petition.
Civil Procedure Code s. 11 Res Judicata, Whether invocable in subsequent
stage of same proceeding.
\
The respondent sought possession of some land, on the ground that tho
appellants who were strangers, had occupied it. The Assistant Commissi~
accepted their claim and directed that the possession of the disputed land I.it:
restored to them.
The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, but their revision petition was accepted by the
Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondents, directing the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in revision.
The matter was remanded and the Tribunal then upheld the findings of the
Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, and dismissed the revision petition. The
appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD:
( 1) The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Ailliitant Commisiionec,
the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be act aside in the writ
petition. (322 B-C]
(2) Principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate iUblle·
quent proceedings, they can also get attracted in subsequent stage of the samo
proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes finlll,
it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceedings. [321 H, 322 Al
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-9-67 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2190/67.
S. V. Gupte, S. S. Javali and B. Dutta, for the Appellant.
A. K. Verma (Mrs.) for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji
and
Co.,
for
Respondents 1 and 2.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
320
Y. B. PATIL AND ORS.
v.
Y. L. PATIL
August 23, 1976
(H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Art. 226, whether concurrent findings of facts by the
lf.evenue Authorities, can be reopened in writ petition.
Civil Procedure Code s. 11 Res Judicata, Whether invocable in subsequent
stage of same proceeding.
\
The respondent sought possession of some land, on the ground that tho
appellants who were strangers, had occupied it. The Assistant Commissi~
accepted their claim and directed that the possession of the disputed land I.it:
restored to them.
The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, but their revision petition was accepted by the
Mysore Revenue
Appellate Tribunal. The High Court allowed the writ petition of the respondents, directing the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of fact in revision.
The matter was remanded and the Tribunal then upheld the findings of the
Assistant and Deputy Commissioners, and dismissed the revision petition. The
appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD:
( 1) The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Ailliitant Commisiionec,
the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot be act aside in the writ
petition. (322 B-C]
(2) Principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate iUblle·
quent proceedings, they can also get attracted in subsequent stage of the samo
proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes finlll,
it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceedings. [321 H, 322 Al
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1968.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-9-67 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2190/67.
S. V. Gupte, S. S. Javali and B. Dutta, for the Appellant.
A. K. Verma (Mrs.) for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji
and
Co.,
for
Respondents 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~ANNA, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High Court whereby the High Court dismissed
petition under articles 226 and 227 filed by the appellants to challenge
the order dated September 12, 1967 of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the first rCipondent applied on April 22, 1959 to the Assistant Commissioner Bagalkot for the restoration of the Patilki/watan/lands 11urvey Noll. 32/2,
54/2, and 4912 under &ections 11, llA and
12 of the Bombay
Hereditary Ot'ficers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). PO!Sieision of thoso lands was sought on the ground that the appellants, who
were stran~ers, had taken possession of the lands.
The Ai;iistant
.~·
/
Y. B. PATIL v. Y. L. PATIL (Khanna, J.)
321
Commissioner, as per order dated August 11,
1960, accepted that
application and directed that the possession of the lan?s be reiotored
to the reipondents. Appeal filed by the appellants agamst that order
wu diiilnissed by the Deputy Commissioner as per order dated J anu-
•y 24, 1961. The appellants then went up in revision before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal as per order dated May 5, 1962 accepted the
reviiion petition and held that the appellants were not strangers to ~he.
"'3.tan. In arriving as this conclusion, the Tribunal held disagreemg
with the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the
watan had been acquired by Basangouda I. The respondents challen~
ed the order of the Tribunal by means of a wrif petition. The wnt
petition filed by the respondents was accepted by the Mysore High
Court as per judgment dated December 18•1964, and it was held that
it lfl.i not open to the Tribunal to reopen and set aside findings of fact
in a revision petition. The case was accordingly remitted to the
Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations of the High
Court.
When the matter came up before the Tribunal after the above
judgment of the High Court, the Tribunal as per order dated September 12, 1967 upheld the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner that the
watan had
been
acquired by
BMangouda II and not by Basangouda I. It may be stated that
Basangouda I was the grandfather of Basangouda 11 and that unless
it be shown that the watan had been acquired by Basangouda I, the
appellant would have to be held strangers qua the lands in dispute.
The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the revision petition which
had
been filed by the appellants.
'J:he appellants thereafter filed petition
under articles 226 and 227 before the High Court and assailed the
above order of the Tribunal.
The High Court dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that the finding that the appellants were strangers
to the watan was one of fact and it was not open to the High Court
to reopen the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner, the
Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal in a writ petition.
In appeal before us Mr. Gupte on behalf of the appellants has
contended that the High Court was in error in not interfering with
the order of the Tribunal whereby the revision petition filed by the
appellants had been dismissed.
It is urged that the Tribunal
in
aftirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner regarding the question of the appellants being strangers
qua the l:ind in dispute took a very restricted view of section 79 of
the Act dealing with revision.
This contention, in our opinion, is
not well founded.
The High Court at the time of the decision of
the earlier writ petition on December 13, 1964 recorded a finding
and gave directions to the Tribunal not to reopen the questions of
fact in revision.
The Tribunal while passing the order dated September 12, 1967 complied with those directions of the High Court.
The
appellants are bound by the judgment of the Hi~h Court and it is not
open to them to go behind that judgment in this appeal.
No appeal
wu filed against that judgment and it has become final. It is well
settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
stage of the same proceedings.
Once an order made in the course
of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent
stage of that proceeding.
In view of the High Court judgment dated
December 18, 1964, the Tribunal while passing the order dated
September 12, 1967, disposing of the revision petition filed
by tile
appellant, could not reopen the questions of fact which had been
decided by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding 1n the judgment
under appeal that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the
Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal
cannot be set aside in the writ petition.
The appeal consequently
fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as
to
costs.
•
. \1. R
Appeal dismissed .
\