Madan Lal vs Kaushliya Devi and Others

Sangeet Lodha, J.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 18.1.14 passed by the District Judge, Merta City, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 8.7.10 passed by the Debt Relief Court, Merta, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 6 of Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), has been dismissed.

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he purchased a shop and a house adjacent thereto, from the first respondent-Smt. Kaushalya Devi for a consideration of Rs. 4 lacs by way of an agreement to sell dated 11.5.97. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by him to the first respondent on the date of execution of the agreement to sell and thereafter, Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in two installments and thus, as against the consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/-, he had already paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. However, later, the house was sold by the first respondent to one Shri Likma Ram s/o Narayan Ram Khati and the shop to Madanlal s/o Narayan Ram. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction inter alia against the first respondent before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Merta, which was contested by the first respondent by filing a written statement thereto. The factum of sale of the property in question and the execution of the agreement as alleged was specifically denied by the first respondent. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the issues as under:

No evidence was led by the parties to the suit. After due consideration, issue No. 1 and 2 were decided against the petitioner and in favour of the first respondent and accordingly, the suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Merta City vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.03. It is not disputed by the learned counsel before this court that the decree passed by the civil court as aforesaid has attained finality.

After the dismissal of the suit for injunction as aforesaid, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Act before the Debt Relief Court, Merta City, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9%. The first respondent filed a reply to the application and at the same time, filed an application under Section 11 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC, for rejection of the application on the ground that the issue raised regarding the execution of the agreement to sell having been decided by the court of competent jurisdiction, the application filed under Section 6 of the Act raising the same issue, is barred by principle of res judicata.

The application preferred by the first respondent under Section 11 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC, was allowed by the Debt Relief Court vide order dated 8.7.09 and accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act was rejected.

Aggrieved thereby, a revision petition preferred by the petitioner also stands dismissed by the District Judge, Merta City vide impugned order dated 18.1.14. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no evidence was led in the suit earlier filed and the findings recorded by the civil court on the issues framed is based on assumption and therefore, the decision of the said issues by the civil court in no manner bars the trial of the claim of the petitioner by the Debt Relief Court for a relief altogether different.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

Indisputably, the suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner on the strength of agreement to sell of the disputed property alleged to have been executed by the first respondent in his favour. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the specific issue as noticed above, was framed by the Civil Court regarding the factum of execution of the agreement dated 11.5.97. The issue framed has been decided against the petitioner and in favour of the first respondent. Merely because the parties to the suit did not lead any evidence, the finding arrived at by the court cannot be treated to be the finding recorded on the basis of assumption. In the considered opinion of this court, the issue with regard to execution of the agreement to sell of the disputed property by the first respondent to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 4 lacs having been decided by the court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act, for the recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid by him in terms of the said agreement to sell is apparently barred by principle of res judicata. The factum of execution of agreement to sell in question was directly and substantially in issue in the previous litigation, which has been decided against the petitioner and therefore, the said decision shall operate as res judicata in any subsequent proceedings.

In the matter of ''Karansee v. Sonsingh'' (1963) ILR, 716, a Bench of this court while dealing with the scope of Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Act of 1957, categorically held:

"The Debt Relief Court has jurisdiction to take proceedings as mentioned in s.10, but it should not question the findings of a civil court where s.10 does not necessarily authorise such court to go behind them. For instance, in the proceedings of the suit filed by Karansee, the question of payment was agitated by him and the civil court found against him that his plea of making payment was not established. The same plea cannot now be allowed to be revived by him in proceedings under the Act and the Debt Relief Court, even when going behind the decree, will have to determine the amount of the principal and shall have to determine also the amount of the interest recoverable under the principles laid down by s. 10 of the Act, should not entertain the plea that had been rejected by the civil court of making payment and wiping out the suit debts."

Thus, in view of the settled position of law, in the considered opinion of this court, the concurrent finding arrived at by the court below that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act raising the issues which already stand determined by the civil court of competent jurisdiction, is barred by principle of res judicata, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.