{"id":19943,"date":"1954-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954"},"modified":"2016-04-04T17:50:43","modified_gmt":"2016-04-04T12:20:43","slug":"shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","title":{"rendered":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR  352, \t\t  1955 SCR   99<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Hasan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Hasan, Ghulam<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/04\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBENCH:\nHASAN, GHULAM\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nBOSE, VIVIAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  352\t\t  1955 SCR   99\n CITATOR INFO :\n C\t    1991 SC2234\t (41)\n\n\nACT:\n   Consent   decree-Legal  effect   thereof-Compromise\t not\nvitiated  by fraud, misrepresentation,\tmisunderstanding  or\nmistake-Decree\tpassed\tthereon-  Whether  operates  as\t res\njudicata-  Civil Procedure Code-(Act V of  1908)--Order\t II,\nrule  2(3)  -Relinquishment  Of\t claim\tin  a  prior   suit-\nSubsequent suit barred in respect of the claim so omitted.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   It  is well settled that a consent decree is\t as  binding\nupon  the  parties thereto as a decree\tpassed\tby  invitum.\nWhere  a compromise is found, not to be vitiated  by  fraud,\nMisrepresentation,\n100\nmisunderstanding  or mistake, the decree passed thereon\t has\nthe binding force of res judicata.\nWhere  the  plaintiff confines his claim to  account  for  a\nperiod up to a certain date only, he relinquishes his  claim\nimplicitly  if\tnot  explicitly\t to  the  account  for\t the\nsubsequent  period because Order II, rule 2 (3) of the\tCode\nof Civil Procedure lays down that if a person omits,  except\nwith  the leave of the Court, to he sue for all\t reliefs  to\nwhich  he is entitled, he shall not afterwards sue  for\t any\nreliefs so omitted.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>   CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.   113  of<br \/>\n1953.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Appeal  from the Judgment and Decree, dated the 25th\t day<br \/>\nof  March, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay<br \/>\n(Bavdekar  and\tDixit JJ.) in Appeal No. 554 of\t 1951,\tfrom<br \/>\nOriginal  Decree  arising out of the  Judgment\tand  Decree,<br \/>\ndated the 30th day of June, 1951, of the Court of the  Joint<br \/>\nCivil  Judge, Senior Division of Thana, in Special Suit\t No.<br \/>\n12 of 1949.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.   S. Krishnaswamy lyengar, (J.  B. Dadachanji, V.B.\tRege<br \/>\nand Ganpat Rai, with him) for the appellants.<br \/>\nS.   B.\t Jathar, R. B. Kotwal and Naunit Lal for  respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>1954.  April 12.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nGHULAM HASAN J.-This appeal is brought by leave of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of  Bombay  against  the judgment  and  decree  of  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of that Court (Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.)  dated<br \/>\nMarch  25,  1952, modifying the judgment and decree  of\t the<br \/>\nCivil Judge, Senior Division of Thana, dated June 30, 1951.<br \/>\nThe appeal arises out of a partition between 6 brothers of a<br \/>\njoint  Hindu  family.\tThe joint family  carried  on  joint<br \/>\nfamily\tbusiness of a grocery shop, liquor shops,  a  ration<br \/>\nshop,  a motor-bus service and also moneylending  under\t the<br \/>\nname  of  &#8220;Sontakke Brothers&#8221;.\tThe  family  also  Possessed<br \/>\nimmovable and movable property.\t Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke<br \/>\nis  the\t eldest\t of  the  brothers  and\t is  the   plaintiff<br \/>\nrespondent  in the present appeal.  He will be\treferred  to<br \/>\nhereafter as the plain-tiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is common ground that up to 1944 the brothers were living<br \/>\nand messing together and the income from<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">101<\/span><br \/>\nthe  family  business used to be kept  with  the  plaintiff.<br \/>\nFrom  April 14, 1945, the situation changed and the  parties<br \/>\nbegan to appropriate the proceeds of the various  businesses<br \/>\ncarried on by them separately to themselves.  The  plaintiff<br \/>\nwas  running the liquor shops, defendants Nos.\tI and 2\t who<br \/>\nare  the appellants, were carrying on the motor-bus  service<br \/>\nbusiness while defendant No. 4 was running the grocery shop.<br \/>\nThe  parties tried to have partition effected  between\tthem<br \/>\nthrough\t arbitrators  but the attempt failed.  On  June\t 29,<br \/>\n1945,  all  the\t five brothers filed a\tsuit  for  partition<br \/>\nagainst\t the  plaintiff\t of  all  joint\t family\t  properties<br \/>\nincluding the accounts of all the businesses.  The suit\t was<br \/>\nnumbered  39 of 1945.  It was compromised on March 7,  1946.<br \/>\nBy  this compromise it was declared that prior to  1942\t all<br \/>\nthe  accounts of the various businesses had  been  correctly<br \/>\nmaintained  and shown, that the parties had agreed  to\thave<br \/>\narbitrators  appointed\tthrough\t Court\tfor  examining\t the<br \/>\naccounts from 1942 up to March 31, 1946, and for determining<br \/>\nthe amount due up to that date.\t Each of the brothers was to<br \/>\nget  one -sixth share in the cash balance as found on  March<br \/>\n31,  1946, upon examination of accounts by the\tarbitrators.<br \/>\nAll  the movable property of the joint family including\t the<br \/>\nstock-in-trade\tof  all\t the family  businesses\t was  to  be<br \/>\ndivided\t equally  among all the\t brothers.   The  compromise<br \/>\nfurther\t declared that the plaintiff was to  have  one-sixth<br \/>\nshare  in the motor garage and that defendants 1 and 2\twere<br \/>\nto  pay the price of one-sixth share to him.  These are\t the<br \/>\nmaterial provisions of the compromise.\tOne of the  brothers<br \/>\nwas  a minor and the Court finding the compromise to be\t for<br \/>\nthe  benefit  of  the minor accepted it and  passed  a\tpre-<br \/>\nliminary decree in terms of the compromise on July 25, 1947.<br \/>\nIf  nothing else had happened to disturb the natural  course<br \/>\nof  events,  the  proceedings would have ended\tin  a  final<br \/>\ndecree\tfor partition.\tThe plaintiff, however, commenced  a<br \/>\nfresh suit on February 23, 1949, confining his relief to his<br \/>\nshare  of  the\tprofits and assets  Of\tthe  motor  business<br \/>\ncarried\t on by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 after March  31,1946.<br \/>\nHis  case was that the compromise was made in a hurry,\tthat<br \/>\nthe  parties omitted to provide in the compromise about\t the<br \/>\nfuture conduct<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">102<\/span><br \/>\nof  the\t motor business from April 1, 1946, that  the  motor<br \/>\nbusiness was still a joint family business and that he had a<br \/>\nright  to  ask for accounts of that business  subsequent  to<br \/>\nMarch 31, 1946.\n<\/p>\n<p>In defence it was pleaded that the compromise was made after<br \/>\ndue  deliberation, that accounts of the motor &#8216;business\t and<br \/>\ngrocery shop should actually have been taken up to April 14,<br \/>\n1945, the date of disruption of the joint family status, but<br \/>\nthe parties agreed by way of compromise that account of\t all<br \/>\nfamily businesses should be taken up to March 31, 1946.\t  It<br \/>\nwas also pleaded that the claim was barred by res  judicata.<br \/>\nUpon  the  issues framed in the case the Civil\tJudge  found<br \/>\nthat  the suit was not. barred by reason of the decision  in<br \/>\nthe previous suit No. 39 of 1945, that the decision in\tthat<br \/>\nsuit  was  not obtained by fraud and  misrepresentation\t and<br \/>\nthat  the compromise in the previous suit was not due  to  a<br \/>\nmistake\t or  misunderstanding.\tDespite these  findings\t the<br \/>\nCivil Judge held that although the motor business carried on<br \/>\nafter the partition had ceased to be a joint family business<br \/>\nyet  as it was carried on by some members of a family  their<br \/>\nposition  was  analogous to that of a  partner\tcarrying  on<br \/>\npartnership  after  dissolution and applying  the  principle<br \/>\nunderlying  section 37 of the Partnership Act he  held\tthat<br \/>\nthe two brothers carrying on the motor business were  liable<br \/>\nto  account.   Accordingly he passed  a\t preliminary  decree<br \/>\ndirecting  the\taccounts of the motor business to  be  taken<br \/>\nfrom March 31, 1946, up to the date on which a final  decree<br \/>\nfor payment of the amount found to be due would be made.   A<br \/>\nCommissioner was appointed to take the accounts to ascertain<br \/>\nthe  profits earned by the use of the capital  belonging  to<br \/>\nthe  shares of brothers other than those who carried on\t the<br \/>\nmotor  business.  In appeal Bavdekar &#8216;J. with whom Dixit  J.<br \/>\nagreed\tmodified the decree of the trial Court by  directing<br \/>\nthat  the accounts were to be taken up to the date when\t the<br \/>\nbusinesses discontinued and not up to the date of the  final<br \/>\ndecree.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  learned  Judges held that the cause of action  for\t the<br \/>\npresent suit was different from the cause. of action in\t the<br \/>\nprevious suit and that the suit was not barred<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">103<\/span><br \/>\nby res judicata or by Order II, rule 2, of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure.  After delivering themselves of some\t conflicting<br \/>\nobservations  to  which\t reference will in  detail  be\tmade<br \/>\nhereafter  they\t held  that  the  consent  decree  did\t not<br \/>\nexpressly  negative  the  right for accounts  of  the  motor<br \/>\ntransport business.  Finally the learned Judges recorded the<br \/>\nconclusion that regardless of the pleadings in the case\t the<br \/>\ndefendants  Nos.  I and 2 had made use of the  joint  family<br \/>\nproperty  and that they stood in, the position of  co-owners<br \/>\nand  as contemplated in section 90 of the Indian Trusts\t Act<br \/>\nwere  liable to render accounts for the-profits\t which\twere<br \/>\nattributable  to the employment of the assets owned  by\t the<br \/>\nparties jointly.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellants has contested the view of<br \/>\nthe  High Court upon all the points decided, ,against  them.<br \/>\nHe  has\t contended that the cause of action in\ta  suit\t for<br \/>\npartition  is  the  desire and intention of  the  family  to<br \/>\nseparate,  that\t the  cause of action in the  two  suits  is<br \/>\nidentically the same and not separate and distinct and. that<br \/>\nthe suit was, therefore, barred both by the principle of res<br \/>\njudicata  and  by Order II, rule 2, of the  Civil  Procedure<br \/>\nCode.  Learned counsel also challenged the view of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  about the applicability of section 90 of\t the  Indian<br \/>\nTrusts Act<br \/>\nIt  seems to us that upon a fair reading of  the  compromise<br \/>\narrived\t at  between the parties in the\t circumstances\tthen<br \/>\nexisting,  the only legitimate conclusion possible  is\tthat<br \/>\nthe parties had agreed to confine the taking of all accounts<br \/>\nupto  March  31,1946, and had closed the door  to  reopening<br \/>\nthem  beyond  that date.  If the compromise was\t arrived  at<br \/>\nafter full consideration by the parties and was not vitiated<br \/>\nby fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or misunderstanding  as<br \/>\nheld  by the trial Court-a finding which was not  interfered<br \/>\nwith  by  the  High  Court-it follows  that  a\tmatter\tonce<br \/>\nconcluded  between  the parties who were dealing  with\teach<br \/>\nother  at arms length cannot now be reopened.  What led\t the<br \/>\nparties to confine the period of account to March 31,  1946,<br \/>\nand  stop  further  accounting\twhich  would  have  normally<br \/>\nextended to the passing of the final decree will appear from<br \/>\nthe  following circumstances.  The plaintiff knew  that\t the<br \/>\nlicence for the liquor shops<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">104<\/span><br \/>\ncarried\t on by him was expiring on the 1st April, 1946,\t and<br \/>\nhe  was anxious to run the liquor business  exclusively\t and<br \/>\nnot  jointly or in partnership with his brothers  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof  the licence.  He gave a notice to  his  brothers<br \/>\nthrough pleader on December 12, 1945, stating inter alia the<br \/>\nfollowing :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The  period of (licence for) the liquor shops at  the\tsaid<br \/>\nplaces\texpires\t by  end of March, 1946.   Hence  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry\tof  the said period, my client having no  desire  to<br \/>\nconduct liquor shop business jointly or in partnership\twith<br \/>\nany of you again, he intends to run and will run as from the<br \/>\ndate 1st April, 1946, one or more liquor shops as he pleases<br \/>\nbelonging to him alone independently.  The moneys that\twill<br \/>\nbe  required for (purchase in) auction of the shops will  be<br \/>\npaid  by my client by borrowing the same from third  parties<br \/>\non  his own responsibility and my client will not allow\t the<br \/>\nsaid   moneys  to  have\t the  least  connection\t  with\t the<br \/>\nbusinesses,  properties\t and cash which are  at\t present  in<br \/>\ndispute\t in Court and with the profits and income  from\t the<br \/>\nsaid businesses or properties.\tMy client expressly  informs\n<\/p>\n<p>-you by this notice of the fact, viz., that the liquor shops<br \/>\nthus purchased by him will solely belong to him and will  be<br \/>\nrun  by him independently of any of you.  None of  you\twill<br \/>\nhave  any  legal right to meddle with or  interfere  in\t the<br \/>\nliquor\tshops which will be thus purchased by my  client  in<br \/>\nthe  Government auction for the new year beginning from\t 1st<br \/>\nApril,\t1946,  and  if\tany of\tyou  make  an  attempt\twith<br \/>\nmalicious intention to cause even the slightest interference<br \/>\nin the said business of my client, then my client will\thold<br \/>\nyou  fully responsible for any harm suffered by him and\t for<br \/>\nother  damages and expenses incurred by him and will take  a<br \/>\nsevere legal action against you therefor.&#8221;<br \/>\nThis  notice furnishes a true guide as to the  intention  of<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff which was none other than that he should\t run<br \/>\nthe liquor shops exclusively for himself and appropriate the<br \/>\nprofits\t thereof without making himself accountable  to\t his<br \/>\nbrothers.   Although the plaintiff says that he intended  to<br \/>\npay  for  the auction of liquor shops by  borrowing  he\t was<br \/>\nreally\tin a position of vantage for he admittedly  had\t Rs.<br \/>\n13,000 cash in hand as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">105<\/span><br \/>\nagainst the Rs. 3,000 his brothers had.\t The notice explains<br \/>\nthe  significance  of the provision in the  compromise\tthat<br \/>\naccounts  are to be taken only up to March 31, 1946.   Since<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff did not want his brothers to  interfere\twith<br \/>\nhis exclusive running of the liquor business after March 31,<br \/>\n1946,  he  perforce had to agree that he  should  sever\t his<br \/>\nconnection with other businesses run by his brothers.\tThis<br \/>\narrangement was apparently acceptable to all the brothers as<br \/>\nbeing fair and reasonable and as not giving undue  advantage<br \/>\nto any party over the other.  This being our construction of<br \/>\nthe  compromise, it follows that the plaintiff&#8217;s conduct  in<br \/>\ngoing  back upon that arrangement by filing a fresh suit  in<br \/>\nregard\tto the motor business only is anything\tbut  honest.<br \/>\nThe  plaint filed in the previous suit leaves no  manner  of<br \/>\ndoubt  that the plaintiffs in that suit ,sought\t a  complete<br \/>\ndivision  of  all  the\tfamily\tproperty  both\tmovable\t and<br \/>\nimmovable  and a final determination of all the accounts  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the family businesses.  It is  also\t significant<br \/>\nthat  after the compromise the plaintiff (Balkrishna)  filed<br \/>\nan  application before the Civil Judge in which\t he  alleged<br \/>\nthat  when he agreed in the compromise that the accounts  of<br \/>\nthe various businesses should be up to the 31st March, 1946,<br \/>\nhe  was\t under a misapprehension regarding his\tlegal  right<br \/>\ninasmuch  as  he thought that when the accounts were  to  be<br \/>\ntaken up to a certain date, &#8216;the joint family property after<br \/>\nthat  date  would  not be allowed to  be  utilized  by\tsome<br \/>\nmembers only of the family for making profits for themselves<br \/>\nto  the exclusion of the plaintiff.  He goes on to say\tthat<br \/>\nhe  laboured  under  the impression that  the  joint  family<br \/>\nbusiness  would be either altogether stopped after the\t31st<br \/>\nMarch,\t1946, or would be run either by the  arbitrators  or<br \/>\nthe  Commissioners and the profits accruing therefrom  would<br \/>\nbe  deposited  in Court for distribution among\tthe  parties<br \/>\naccording  to  their shares.  The application  was  made  on<br \/>\nNovember 22, 1947.  His pleader, however, stated on April 6,<br \/>\n1948: &#8221; The application is abandoned by the applicant as  he<br \/>\nwishes\tto pursue his remedy by way of an  independent\tsuit<br \/>\nfor the grievance in the application,&#8221; and the Court  passed<br \/>\nthe order, &#8220;The application is disposed of as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">14<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">106<\/span><br \/>\nit is not pressed.&#8221; The learned Judges of the High Court  in<br \/>\nreferring to this application observe thus: &#8221; It is  obvious<br \/>\ntherefrom  that really speaking the idea of the\t profits  of<br \/>\nseveral businesses after the 1st of April, 1946, was present<br \/>\nto the minds of the parties; but the parties did not care to<br \/>\nask  that accounts of the other businesses will be taken  up<br \/>\nafter  the 1st of April, 1946.\tOne of the businesses was  a<br \/>\nliquor\tbusiness, which admittedly was to come to an end  on<br \/>\nthe  31st  of  March,  1946;  but  there  was  also  another<br \/>\nbusiness;  that Was a kirana shop, which was not a very\t big<br \/>\nbusiness.   But\t all  the same it was there,  and  there  is<br \/>\nforce, therefore, in the contention which has been  advanced<br \/>\non behalf of the appellants that it was not as if there\t has<br \/>\nbeen  an  oversight  on the part of  the  parties,  but\t the<br \/>\nparties knew that the businesses might go on afterwards; but<br \/>\nif they were carried on, they did not particularly care\t for<br \/>\nproviding  by  the compromise decree for accounts  of  those<br \/>\nbusinesses being taken after the 1st of April, 1946.&#8221; Having<br \/>\nsaid all this they record the conclusion that the compromise<br \/>\ndid not expressly negative the right of the plaintiff to  an<br \/>\naccount\t of  motor business.  We are unable to\taccept\tthis<br \/>\nconclusion.   The  observations quoted\tabove  negative\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s case about mistake or misunderstanding in regard<br \/>\nto  the\t true  effect of the compromise and  show  that\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  abandoned the right to Account after the  crucial<br \/>\ndate  and the status of the parties thereafter changed\tinto<br \/>\none of tenants in common.  If the plaintiff really  intended<br \/>\nthat  accounts of the motor business or indeed of all  other<br \/>\nbusinesses  were  to be taken up to the date of\t the  &#8216;final<br \/>\ndecree,\t there\twas no point in mentioning the\t31st  March,<br \/>\n1946.\tThe normal course, after the preliminary decree\t was<br \/>\npassed by the Court, was to divide all the property by metes<br \/>\nand  bounds and to award monies as found on  examination  of<br \/>\nthe accounts right up to the date of the final decree.\t But<br \/>\nfor  the compromise which limited the period of the  account<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff\twould  have obtained the relief\t he  is\t now<br \/>\nseeking,  in the partition suit as accounts would have\tbeen<br \/>\ntaken  of  all the businesses up to the date  of  the  final<br \/>\ndecree.\t  The plaintiff has himself to thank for  preventing<br \/>\nthe natural<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">107<\/span><br \/>\ncourse of events and for forbidding the accounts to be taken<br \/>\nafter the 31st March, 1946.  The plaintiff on the other hand<br \/>\nhas  no\t real  grievance in the\t matter,  for  although\t the<br \/>\ndefendants  Nos.  1 and 2, who continued to  run  the  motor<br \/>\nbusiness, may have made some money with the- help of the two<br \/>\nold  motor  buses, the plaintiff whose keenness to  run\t the<br \/>\nliquor\tbusiness  is apparent from the\tnotice\treferred  to<br \/>\nabove  was  not precluded from reaping the  fruits  of\tthat<br \/>\nbusiness.   It is hard to conceive that the plaintiff  would<br \/>\nhave  agreed  to share his burden of the loss if  the  motor<br \/>\nbusiness  had sustained any.  We hold, therefore,  that\t the<br \/>\ncompromise closed once for all the controversy about  taking<br \/>\nany  account  of the joint family businesses  including\t the<br \/>\nmotor  business\t after\tthe  31st  March&#8217;,  1946,  and\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  is bound by the terms of the compromise  and\t the<br \/>\nconsent decree following upon it.\n<\/p>\n<p>The obvious effect of this finding is that the plaintiff  is<br \/>\nbarred by the principle of res judicata from reaitating\t the<br \/>\nquestion  in  the present suit.\t It is well settled  that  a<br \/>\nconsent\t decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as  a<br \/>\ndecree passed by invitum.  The compromise having been  found<br \/>\nnot   to   be\tvitiated   by\tfraud,\t  misrepresentation,<br \/>\nmisunderstanding  or mistake, the decree passed thereon\t has<br \/>\nthe binding force of res judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are also of opinion that the plaintiff&#8217;s claim is  barred<br \/>\nby  the\t provisions of Order II, rule 2(3), of the  Code  of<br \/>\nCivil  Procedure.  The plaintiff by confining his  claim  to<br \/>\naccount\t up  to\t March\t3, 1946,  only,\t implicitly  of\t not<br \/>\nexplicitly,  relinquished his claim to the account  for\t the<br \/>\nsubsequent  period.  Sub-rule 3 clearly lays down that if  a<br \/>\nperson Omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for<br \/>\nall reliefs to which he is entitled, he shall not afterwards<br \/>\nsue  for  any relief so omitted.  We do not agree  with\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court that the cause of action in the subsequent\tsuit<br \/>\nwas  different from the cause of action in the\tfirst  suit.<br \/>\nThe cause of action in the first suit was the desire of\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  to separate from his brothers and to\t divide\t the<br \/>\njoint  family  property.   That\t suit  embraced\t the  entire<br \/>\nproperty  without any reservation and was  compromised,\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff  having abandoned his claim to account in  respect<br \/>\nof<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">108<\/span><br \/>\nthe  motor  business  subsequent to  March  31,\t 1946.\t His<br \/>\nsubsequent suit to enforce a part of the claim is founded on<br \/>\nthe same cause of action which he deliberately relinquished.<br \/>\nWe are clear, therefore, that the cause of action in the two<br \/>\nsuits  being  the same, the suit is barred under  Order\t II,<br \/>\nrule 2(3), of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>As  the. suit is barred both by res judicata and  Order\t II,<br \/>\nrule 2(3), of the Civil Procedure Code, no further  question<br \/>\nas  to the applicability of section 90 of the Indian  Trusts<br \/>\nAct can possibly arise under the circumstances.<br \/>\nThe result is that we allow the appeal and dismiss the\tsuit<br \/>\nwith costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tAppeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 352, 1955 SCR 99 Author: G Hasan Bench: Hasan, Ghulam PETITIONER: SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: BALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/1954 BENCH: HASAN, GHULAM BENCH: HASAN, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\"},\"wordCount\":3101,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\",\"name\":\"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954","datePublished":"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954"},"wordCount":3101,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954","name":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And ... vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And ... on 12 April, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T12:20:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankar-sitaram-sontakke-and-vs-balkrishna-sitaram-sontakke-and-on-12-april-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And &#8230; on 12 April, 1954"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19943","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}