{"id":29819,"date":"2008-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-31T04:14:05","modified_gmt":"2018-01-30T22:44:05","slug":"arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA No.2970 of 2008                  1\n\nIn the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.\n\n\n\n\n              RSA No. 2970 of 2008\n              Decided on December 22,2008.\n\n\n\n\nArjun Singh                                      -- Appellant\n\n\n\n              vs.\n\n\nBachan Singh and others                          --Respondents<\/pre>\n
CORAM:        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN\n\n\n\n\nPresent:      Mr.B.R.Mahajan,Advocate, for the appellant\n\n<\/pre>\n
              Mr.Amarjit Markan,Advocate,for the respondents.<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Defendant No.1 Arjan Singh is in second appeal against the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of learned Addl. District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track<\/p>\n
Court, Amritsar, dated 30.5.2008 by which the suit of the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
decreed and the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)<\/p>\n
Amritsar dated 27.7.2004 was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
              The learned counsel for the appellant has raised following
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
questions of law in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            (i) “Whether in a suit, if one of the issues is decided against<\/p>\n
the defendant but the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and no appeal is<\/p>\n
filed by the defendant to challenge that issue though right to appeal is<\/p>\n
available, whether finding on the issue decided against the defendant<\/p>\n
would operate as res-judicata ?” and (ii) “Whether an issue deciding the<\/p>\n
title of the parties to a property is a substantial issue and shall attract the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 11 of the C.P.C., if it is not challenged in appeal by<\/p>\n
the defendant inspite of the fact that        the suit of the      plaintiff is<\/p>\n
dismissed ?”.\n<\/p>\n
            In brief, the facts of the case are that Jowala Singh son of Attar<\/p>\n
Singh mortgaged the land bearing pre-consolidation number with Beant<\/p>\n
Singh, Surain Singh, Narain Singh and Bhagat Singh. Narain Singh died<\/p>\n
leaving behind no legal heir. Bhagat Singh died         leaving behind Santa<\/p>\n
Singh as his legal heir. Santa Singh died leaving behind no child. The<\/p>\n
property was inherited by their brother Beant Singh and Surain Singh.<\/p>\n
Surain Singh died leaving behind Mohinder Singh (defendant No.2), Taro<\/p>\n
(defendant No.3) and Gejo (defendant No.4). Beant Singh left behind<\/p>\n
Arjan Singh (defendant No.1). Beant Singh’s brother Darshan Singh also<\/p>\n
died without leaving behind any legal heir. In this case, Arjan Singh<\/p>\n
(defendant No.1\/appellant) is the mortgagee to the extent of \u00bd share and<\/p>\n
the remaining \u00bd share was under           mortgage   with    Mohinder Singh<\/p>\n
(defendant No.2), Taro (defendant No.3) and Gejo (defendant No.4). The<\/p>\n
mortgage deed dated 26.3.1923 was in respect of 84 kanals of land for an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.4,500\/-. The land in question was irredeemable for 60<\/p>\n
years. Jowala Singh (mortgagor) died leaving behind Ujjagar Singh, his<\/p>\n
adopted son as his legal heir. Ujjagar Singh also died leaving behind his
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
sister Isso. Isso too had died leaving behind her legal heirs Datto and<\/p>\n
Puran Singh. Puran Singh died on 16.8.1994. Datto also died leaving<\/p>\n
behind Bachan Singh (plaintiff) as her son.        Inheritance of Puran Singh<\/p>\n
devolved upon the plaintiff vide mutation No. 953. Thus, the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
the mortgagor of the suit land, out of which, \u00bd share of the mortgaged<\/p>\n
land in the hands of Mohinder Singh (defendant No.2), Taro (defendant<\/p>\n
No.3) and Gejo (defendant No.4) has already been redeemed and is now<\/p>\n
claiming to redeem \u00bd share             of    the land from Arjan Singh-<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellant No.1. on payment of Rs.2250\/- i.e. 1\/2 share         of the<\/p>\n
total mortgage amount of Rs. 4500\/-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Only defendant No.1.contested the suit and filed the written<\/p>\n
statement taking preliminary objection that the plaintiff has no right, title or<\/p>\n
interest in the suit property. On merit, it was submitted that plaint is<\/p>\n
vague because complete particulars of the mortgaged property were not<\/p>\n
given. Defendant No.1 proclaimed himself to be the owner and denied<\/p>\n
that \u00bd share was inherited by Mohinder Singh (defendant No.2), Taro<\/p>\n
(defendant No.3) and Gejo (defendant No.4) . It was also claimed that        he<\/p>\n
had become the owner of the suit property by lapse of time and thus<\/p>\n
prayed that suit be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed<\/p>\n
on 18.11.1996:-\n<\/p>\n
                1Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession by<\/p>\n
                  way of redemption ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               2.Whether Jowala Singh mortgaged the land measuring 84<\/p>\n
               kanals in favour of Beant Singh, Surain Singh, Narain Singh
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
               and Bhagat Singh by way of mortgage deed dated 26.3.1923<\/p>\n
               ? OPP<\/p>\n
               3 . Whether the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest<\/p>\n
                  in the suit land ? OPD<\/p>\n
               4 . Whether the present suit is not maintainable ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               5. Wehther Jowala Singh adopted Ujjagar Singh during<\/p>\n
                  his life time. OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               6.Whether Datto and Puran Singh are the legal heirs of
\n                 Smt.Isso ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               7.Whether Isso has got no concern with the family of
\n                 Jowala Singh OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               8.Whether the land in suit has been allotted in lieu of old
\n                 khasra numbers ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               9.Relief:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Both the parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
examined Tara Singh son of Jhanda Singh as PW-1, Kulwant Singh son<\/p>\n
of Bahadur Singh as PW 1 (wrongly numbered ), Tara Singh son of Mota<\/p>\n
Singh   as PW 2, G.D.Sodhi,Advocate          as PW-3, Ramesh Pal, Senior<\/p>\n
Assistant as PW 4, plaintiff Bachan Singh        as PW-5 and closed their<\/p>\n
evidence. As against this, Arjan Singh appeared as DW-1 and thereafter<\/p>\n
his evidence was closed by order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The    trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff     on the<\/p>\n
ground that he has no locus standi to file the suit as he is not proved to be<\/p>\n
the mortgagor. It was held that the plaintiff was claiming his right of being<\/p>\n
a mortgagor through Isso, sister of Ujjagar Singh, who was adopted son
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
of Jowala Singh and therefore, after his adoption to the family of Jowala<\/p>\n
Singh, Ujjagar Singh was totally transplanted to the adoptive family and<\/p>\n
Isso being natural born sister of Ujjagar Singh was not his legal heir and<\/p>\n
thus the plaintiff was also not found to be the legal heir of Ujjagar Singh.<\/p>\n
            It is pertinent to mention here that Jawala Singh       was the<\/p>\n
mortgagor and Beant Singh, Surain Singh, Narain Singh and Bhagat Singh<\/p>\n
were the mortgagees. It is also pertinent to mention that the present<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant No.1     is the son of    mortgagee Beant Singh and<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the mortgagee Surain Singh<\/p>\n
from whom the plaintiff has already redeemed the land to the extent of \u00bd<\/p>\n
share. Third mortgagee Narain Singh had left behind no legal heir. Fourth<\/p>\n
mortgagee Bhagat Singh died leaving behind Santa Singh whereas Santa<\/p>\n
Singh died without leaving any legal heir. Therefore, the         mortgagee<\/p>\n
rights were inherited by surviving mortgagees Beant Singh and Surain<\/p>\n
Singh, out of whom \u00bd share of the suit land has already been redeemed<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff from the legal heir of Surain Singh and for redeeming the<\/p>\n
other 1\/2 share from Arjan Singh son of Beant Singh, the present suit has<\/p>\n
been filed. The plaintiff had taken up the plea before the trial Court that<\/p>\n
Ujjagar Singh adopted son of Jowala Singh ( mortgagor) had given the<\/p>\n
land in question by way of gift deed (Ex.D 3) dated 15.5.1965 to Sewa<\/p>\n
Singh (father of the plaintiff). Sewa Singh filed a suit against Beant<\/p>\n
Singh (father of Bachan Singh defendant No.1\/appellant) and others for<\/p>\n
possession by way of redemption of the suit land in which         one of the<\/p>\n
issues was whether plaintiff (Sewa Singh) has locus standi to file the suit .<\/p>\n
The said issue was answered in favour of Sewa Singh. However, the main
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
suit was dismissed on the ground that Sewa Singh cannot redeem the land<\/p>\n
prior to the expiry of     60 years.    In the present case, the trial Court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit on the ground that these facts were not pleaded in the<\/p>\n
plaint, therefore, any evidence led in this regard cannot be looked into.<\/p>\n
             During the pendency of the appeal before the learned first<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17<\/p>\n
of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) seeking the amendment of the<\/p>\n
plaint. The plaintiff took the plea that in the earlier litigation in Civil Suit<\/p>\n
No.49 decided on 30.11.1967 by the Court of Mr.B.S.Teji and the appeal<\/p>\n
decided by the Court of Mr. K.S.Tiwana, learned Addl. District Judge,<\/p>\n
Amritsar on 5.2.1970, it was held that the land can be redeemed after the<\/p>\n
expiry of 60 years and since the period has not expired, therefore, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to get the land redeemed.   It was also held in the<\/p>\n
said suit that Ujjagar Singh son of Jowala Singh, (original mortgagor) had<\/p>\n
executed a valid gift deed dated 15.5.1965 during his life time in favour of<\/p>\n
Sewa Singh     (father of the plaintiff).   Though     in the said    litigation<\/p>\n
between predecessor-in-interest of the present parties, it was further held<\/p>\n
that Sewa Singh had locus standi to file the suit because title has been<\/p>\n
devolved upon him in the suit property (mortgaged property) by virtue of<\/p>\n
the gift deed. The said application for amendment was allowed vide order<\/p>\n
dated 15.12.2006 and the plaintiff was permitted to take these pleas in the<\/p>\n
plaint. Appellant\/defendant No.1 filed a Civil Revision No. 58 of 2007<\/p>\n
against the order of the learned first Appellate Court dated 15.12.2006, but<\/p>\n
this Court vide its order dated 25.9.2007 dismissed the revision petition<\/p>\n
and that order had attained finality.\n<\/p>\n
 RSA No.2970 of 2008                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
              Since the evidence was already on record and pleadings were<\/p>\n
allowed to be amended, the learned first Appellate Court decreed the suit<\/p>\n
holding that the plaintiff is claiming the land being the legal heir of Sewa<\/p>\n
Singh. Copy of that judgment is Ex. PW5\/A of the Court of Mr.B.S.Teji<\/p>\n
Sub Judge, Amritsar in which it was held that Sewa Singh had locus<\/p>\n
standi to file the suit but since redemption was to be carried out after<\/p>\n
expiry of 60 years and that period had not expired, therefore, the suit was<\/p>\n
dismissed. Appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 30.11.1967<\/p>\n
was filed before Sh.K.S.Tiwana, learned Addl.District Judge, Amritsar, in<\/p>\n
which it was also held that the plaintiff had locus standi to file the suit but<\/p>\n
the land could not be redeemed till the expiry of        period of 60 years.<\/p>\n
Thus, it was held by both the Courts below that Sewa Singh (father of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff) had locus standi to file the suit since the property in dispute had<\/p>\n
been gifted     to him by Ujjagar Singh and the plaintiff (Bachan Singh)<\/p>\n
being the son of Sewa Singh, has inherited his rights to get the property<\/p>\n
in dispute redeemed from the possession of the mortgagee. It was also<\/p>\n
held by the learned first Appellate Court that out of the total mortgaged<\/p>\n
land, \u00bd    share has already been got redeemed         by the plaintiff from<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and an entry regarding redemption has also been<\/p>\n
incorporated in the jamabandi.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Mr.B.R.Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
has vehemently contended that there is no evidence with regard to adoption<\/p>\n
of Ujjagar Singh by Jawala Singh (mortgagor) and in the absence of any<\/p>\n
evidence in respect of the adoption, no title has passed either in favour of
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
Ujjagar Singh or in favour of Sewa Singh or the plaintiff. This argument<\/p>\n
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has been answered by the<\/p>\n
trial court   while deciding issue No.5, which is reproduced below:-<\/p>\n
              “Onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. Defendant<\/p>\n
has placed on record copy of judgment in suit No. 280 of 1923 titled<\/p>\n
‘Ujjagar Singh adopted son of Jawala Singh v. Jawala Singh<\/a> etc.’ Certified<\/p>\n
copy of that judgment is Ex. D1. Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that<\/p>\n
Ujjagar Singh has filed this suit as adopted son of Jowala Singh against<\/p>\n
Jowala Singh and others during the life time of Jowala Singh in the year<\/p>\n
1923 and in that suit plaintiff claimed the suit land as ancestral qua himself<\/p>\n
and it was held that plaintiff Ujjagar Singh, therefore, cannot claim the<\/p>\n
land to be ancestral qua himself as adopted son of Jowala Singh, even if,<\/p>\n
the adoption be an established fact, simply because the same was ancestral<\/p>\n
in the hands of his adoptive father, so Ujjagar Singh was held to be<\/p>\n
adopted son of Jawala Singh in that judgment. Though Jowala Singh had<\/p>\n
denied the same but when the court held that adoption is an established<\/p>\n
fact, so it is proved that Ujjagar Singh was adopted son of Jawala Singh<\/p>\n
and as such, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the<\/p>\n
defendants”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              It is next argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
learned first Appellate Court has solely relied upon the judgment dated<\/p>\n
30.11.1967 Ex.PW5\/A to reverse the findings of the trial Court,but the<\/p>\n
judgment is not the conclusive proof because the suit filed by Sewa<\/p>\n
Singh,(predecessor-in-interest    of   Bachan     Singh\/plaintiff)   claiming<\/p>\n
redemption was dismissed and there was no occasion or opportunity with
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
the defendants to challenge the findings recorded in the said judgment.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances, it was argued that adverse finding on issue No.1 in<\/p>\n
Civil suit No.49      (Sewa Singh v. Beant Singh and others<\/a>) decided on<\/p>\n
30.11.1967 vide judgment Ex. PW5\/A cannot operate as resjudicata or<\/p>\n
have any binding effect on the rights of the appellant. In this regard, Mr.<\/p>\n
Mahajan has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Ved Parkash<\/p>\n
vs. Balram Dass<\/a> 1993 (3) P.L.R.420.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            As against this, Mr.Amarjit Markan,            learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the caveator\/respondents\/plaintiff has vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that since earlier decision (Ex. PW5\/A) was between the predecessor-in-<\/p>\n
interest of the parties in respect of the same subject matter and issue No.1<\/p>\n
was in respect of the right\/locus standi of the plaintiff (Sewa Singh) for<\/p>\n
the purpose of title to the suit property on the basis of gift deed has been<\/p>\n
decided in his favour, therefore, the same operates as resjudicata even if<\/p>\n
the suit and the appeal were dismissed on other grounds.     Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the caveator\/ respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Sohan Singh vs. Murti Rani and others<\/a> 2008 (2) P.L.R.591 and<\/p>\n
Gurdip Singh v. Arjan Singh<\/a> 1992 P.L.J.110.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have<\/p>\n
perused the record with their assistance.\n<\/p>\n
            It is well settled that the party against whom a finding is<\/p>\n
recorded has got a right of appeal even if ultimate decision may be in his<\/p>\n
favour if that finding operates as resjudicata in a subsequent suit or<\/p>\n
proceedings; but if it does not operate as rejudicata, then such a party
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
has no right of appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Before   divulging upon the arguments        raised by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case<\/p>\n
decided vide judgment Ex. PW5\/A. In the said case, Sewa Singh filed a<\/p>\n
suit for possession by way of redemption in respect of the suit land on<\/p>\n
payment of Rs.4500\/- alleging that Jowala Singh had mortgaged the suit<\/p>\n
land on 26.3.1923         for a sum of Rs.4500\/- in favour of Beant Singh<\/p>\n
(defendant No.1), Mohinder Singh (defendant No.2) Smt. Tara (defendant<\/p>\n
No.3) and Smt. Gejo (defendant No.4). The plaintiff was claiming his<\/p>\n
ownership over the suit land on the basis of gift deed dated 15.5.1965<\/p>\n
executed by Ujjagar        Singh, adopted    son of Jowala Singh (original<\/p>\n
mortgagor).    The suit was contested by the defendants therein alleging that<\/p>\n
Ujjagar Singh did not execute any gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
also contended that Jowala Singh did not adopt Ujjagar Singh and thus,<\/p>\n
Ujjagar Singh had no right in the suit property and could not have gifted<\/p>\n
it to the plaintiff (Sewa Singh). Therefore, it was claimed that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff Sewa Singh had no right to file the suit. On these pleadings, the<\/p>\n
issues were framed in which Issue No.1 was “Whether the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
the locus standi to file the present suit” and issue No.6 was ” Whether<\/p>\n
there has been any litigation between the parties regarding the suit land, if<\/p>\n
so its effect? OPD”. The trial Court in the said suit dealt-with issue Nos.<\/p>\n
1 and 6 together and recorded the following finding:-<\/p>\n
              “The defendants denied the plaintiff’s right to file the suit. It<\/p>\n
was contended that Ujjagar Singh was not the adopted son of Jowala Singh<\/p>\n
original mortgagor who gifted away the land           to plaintiff having no
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
interest and title in it. It was also contended that said Ujjagar Singh filed a<\/p>\n
suit for declaration in the year 1923 against the defendant mortgagees and<\/p>\n
the same was dismissed. Thus, the suit is barred by the principle of<\/p>\n
resjudicata.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Plaintiff appeared as PW 4 and produced three witnesses to<\/p>\n
prove the gift deed Ex.P-1. He has also placed on record Jamabandi for the<\/p>\n
year 1962-63 Ex-P-2, Missal Haqiat Ex-P-3, Naksha Haqdarwar Ex.P-4<\/p>\n
Khatauni Ishtimal, Ex.P-5, Khatauni Paimash Ex.P-6 copy of the mutation<\/p>\n
No.294 Ex.P-7, Khatauni Ishtimal Ex.P-8 and copy of the mortgage deed<\/p>\n
Ex.P-9. PW Shri Bhagwan Dass is the scribe and PW 2 and PW 3 are the<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses of Ex P-9. Thus by documentary evidence it is proved<\/p>\n
that Ujagar Singh executed Ex-P-1 in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff as<\/p>\n
PW-4 deposed that 1and in dispute was firstly owned by Jowala Singh and<\/p>\n
after him devolved upon Ujagar Singh his adopted son and Ujagar Singh<\/p>\n
has executed Ex- P-1 in his favour. There is no rebuttal to the documentary<\/p>\n
evidence on the defendants side.\n<\/p>\n
               From other documents Ex-P-2 to P-8 to which presumption of<\/p>\n
truth attaches, it is found that Ujagar Singh has been shown the adopted son<\/p>\n
of Jowala Singh in the column of ownership and thereafter the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
been shown its owner.\n<\/p>\n
               Defendant on the other hand produced copy of the judgment<\/p>\n
Ex-D 2, copy of the plaint Ex-D1 and appeared as his own witness as DW-<\/p>\n
1. I have gone through the records and carefully perused the record and find<\/p>\n
that Ex-D 2 does not say any thing with regard to the adoption of Ujagar<\/p>\n
Singh. The suit was dismissed on the point of ancestral nature of land and
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
right to file a declaratory suit by an adopted son. Thus the question of<\/p>\n
adoption was not decided in Ex.D-2. Thus there is res-judicate and the suit<\/p>\n
is barred. I decide issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.6<\/p>\n
against the defendants.”\n<\/p>\n
            The redemption period was to start after the expiry of 60 years<\/p>\n
and as per the mortgage deed, it was the case of the plaintiff in the said<\/p>\n
case (Ex..PW5\/A), that redemption period of 60 years in the mortgage deed<\/p>\n
is penal and onerous and creates a clog on redemption. This plea was<\/p>\n
not accepted and it was held that stipulation of 60 years cannot be regarded<\/p>\n
a clog on equity of redemption and the stipulation was not found to be un-<\/p>\n
conscienceable and as such the suit was dismissed on this ground.<\/p>\n
            From the narration of above facts, it is amply clear that the<\/p>\n
finding on Issue No.1. in the decision Ex. PW5\/A was returned after taking<\/p>\n
into account the entire evidence in respect of gift deed which was a<\/p>\n
matter directly and substantially in issue decided in the earlier suit (Ex.<\/p>\n
PW5\/A) between the parties under whom the present plaintiff               and<\/p>\n
defendant are claiming their title , therefore, the said finding on issue No.1<\/p>\n
Ex.PW5\/A operates as resjudicata in terms of the provisions of Section 11<\/p>\n
of the C.P.C. Thus, in my view the judgment relied upon by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant in the case of Ved Parkash (Supra)          is not<\/p>\n
applicable because even if the main suit was dismissed vide judgment<\/p>\n
Ex. PW5\/A but the finding recorded on issue No.1 was deciding the right<\/p>\n
of the parties would certainly attract provision of Section 11 of the<\/p>\n
C.P.C.and defendant No.1\/appellant had a right to challenge that finding<\/p>\n
by way of further appeal. Once it has not been done, so it cannot be<\/p>\n
urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that it would not operate
\n RSA No.2970 of 2008                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
as resjudicata as he     had no opportunity to challenge that finding in<\/p>\n
appeal.   Moreover, issue deciding title of the property is a substantial<\/p>\n
issue and any decision on that issue in an earlier litigation between the<\/p>\n
same parties or parties or their predecessor-in-interest would certainly<\/p>\n
attract the provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the<\/p>\n
present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
December 22,2008                                 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)\nRR                                                       Judge\n\n             Refer to Reporter- Yes\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 RSA No.2970 of 2008 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. RSA No. 2970 of 2008 Decided on December 22,2008. Arjun Singh — Appellant vs. Bachan Singh and others –Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan,Advocate, […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-30T22:44:05+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T22:44:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3369,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T22:44:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-30T22:44:05+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T22:44:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008"},"wordCount":3369,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008","name":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T22:44:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjun-singh-vs-bachan-singh-and-others-on-22-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arjun Singh vs Bachan Singh And Others on 22 December, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/29819","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=29819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}