Murti Thakurji v. Babu Lal

IN T

Murti Thakurji M

Babu Lal & Oth

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Res

Res

ex-

MANDEEP PA

1.

appellant/plainti judgment and d Judge, whereby Court after settin originally decre dated 07.03.198 Brief Facts

2.

owner of the su Rajinder Das, w be the legal re THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro Maharaj and Others

VERSUS hers

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the a spondent No.1-contesting respon spondent Nos. 2 to 5 non-contest -parte before the trial Court. ANNU, J e present Regular Second Ap iff Murti Thakur Ji, through Ra decree dated 12.12.1991 passed the appeal filed by Babu Lal w ng aside the findings recorded by eed the suit in favour of the pl

¶87e plaintiffs had filed a suit for uit property was Murti Thakur J was the Mohtmim of the temple. presentatives of deceased Mah

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-1432-1992 (O&M) served on: 13.08.2025 onounced on: 19.08.2025

.....Appellants

.....Respondents DEEP PANNU appellant. ndent ex-parte. ting and were ppeal has been preferred by ajinder Das, against the impugn by the learned Additional Dist was accepted by the lower Appell y the learned trial Court, which h laintiffs vide judgment and dec r declaration to the effect that Ji Maharaj, and that plaintiff No Plaintiffs No. 2 to 8 were stated hant Ram Das. The plaintiffs a

ned trict late had cree o.1, d to

sought that mut aside. In the alt the defendants f They also sough

3.

It w the revenue auth was illegal and v Das, he had app in this regard. E Mohtmim. The but without succ

4.

It was pleaded t nor did he have Mahant Nagesh lifetime, the def the mutations w attested in the Rajinder Das ha civil suit had ea which barred th further pleaded standi to mainta

5.

Rep

6.

Fol tation dated 20.06.1983 was ille ternative, the plaintiffs prayed fo from interfering in their possess ht possession in case the defenda was the case of the plaintiffs tha horities, got entered the impugn void. It was further pleaded that pointed Rajinder Das as his Chel Ever since then, Rajinder Das h defendants were repeatedly requ cess. e defendants contested the suit b that Ram Das was not the Moh e any concern with the suit pr hwar Das who was the Mohtm fendant had been adopted as his C were not entered behind the ba presence of persons concerned ad ever been adopted as Chela of arlier been decided between Raji he present suit by the principl that the suit was time-barred, a ain the same. plication to the written statement llowing issues were framed:-

egal and void, and liable to be or permanent injunction restrain sion over the property in questi ants were found to be in possessi at the defendants, in collusion w ned mutation in their favour, wh during the lifetime of Mahant R la and a formal ceremony was h had been performing the duties uested to acknowledge this posit by denying the plaintiffs' assertio htmim of Murti Thakur Ji Maha roperty. According to them, it w mim of the temple and during Chela. It was further contended t ack of the plaintiffs but were d d. The defendants also denied t f Ram Das. They pointed out tha inder Das and them on 10.09.19 le of res judicata. The defenda and that the plaintiffs had no lo t was filed by the plaintiffs.

set ning ion. on. with hich Ram held s of tion ons. araj, was his that duly that at a 975, ants

¶1pro

2. OP

¶3Da

¶4bin

5.

6. OP

7.

8.

9.

¶10Tha

¶11pro

12.

7.

Bot Findings of the

8.

decreed the suit had in fact been the Mohtmim of Whether the plaintiffs are ow operty as Mohatmims as alleged? Whether the plaintiffs are en PP Whether the plaintiff No.1 R ss? OPP Whether the impugned muta nding on the plaintiffs as alleged? Whether the suit is barred by Whether the plaintiffs have PD Whether the suit is barred by Whether the suit is not maint Whether the defendants are e

Whether the defendant No akurji Maharaj, as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiffs are operty in dispute as alleged? OPD

Relief. th sides led evidence in support o e Trial Court e learned trial Court, after app t in favour of the plaintiffs. It w n appointed as Chela of Mahant f Murti Thakur Ji Maharaj. The t

wners in possession of the dispu ?OPP ntitled to the injunction prayed f Rajender Dass is the Chela of R ation No.745, 525 and 991 are ? OPP y limitation? OPD e no locus-standi to file the su y principle of res-judicata? OPD tainable in the present form?OPD entitled to the special costs? OPD .1 is the Mohtmim of the M D entitled to the possession of D of their respective stands. preciating the evidence on reco was held that plaintiff Rajinder D Ram Das and, in that capacity, w trial court thus recognized Rajin

uted for? Ram not uit? D D urti ord, Das was

Das as the owne plaintiffs' claim Findings of the

9.

Ag Court, the defe Additional Distr appeal, framed principle of res Appellate Court learned Sub Jud Rajinder Das. T Court.

10.

Rajinder Das ha friend during h Therefore, the f that reasoning, t dismissed the su

11.

Ag passed by the lo Second Appeal. were according appellant/plainti the suit was bar Rajinder Das w er of the suit property in his cap accordingly. e Lower Appellate Court grieved by the judgment and de fendant/appellant Babu Lal file rict Judge, Narnaul. The lower A the main issue as to "whether s judicata". Upon consideration t observed that in the former su dge had held Babu Lal to be th The appeal against that decision e lower Appellate Court furth ad been a party and was repres his minority. He had been prop finding in the former suit operat the lower Appellate Court set as uit filed by the plaintiffs. grieved by the impugned judgm ower Appellate Court, the plain Notice was issued to the respon gly proceeded against ex p iff has argued that the lower Ap rred by res judicata. It was cont as a minor and was not properly

pacity as Mohtmim and decreed ecree dated 07.03.1987 of the t ed an appeal before the learn Appellate Court, while accepting the present suit was barred by n of the matter, the learned low uit filed by Sardara and Jahara, he Mohtmim of the temple and had been dismissed up to the H her held that in the former s sented through Jagdish as his n perly represented in that litigati ted as res judicata against him. ide the decree of the trial court a ment and decree dated 07.03.19 ntiffs preferred the present Regu ndents but none appeared, and th parte. Learned counsel for ppellate Court erred in holding t tended that in the earlier litigati y represented, and that his intere

trial ned wer not High suit, next ion. On and ular hey that ion,

had not been judgment had b from the revenu on the judgmen Others v. Gopal Findings

12.

findings of the barred by the understand it ba the former civil Thakurji Mahar Das, through Ja No.2). The pro involved in the Thakurji Mahar Issue No.2 "2. Ma

13.

defendant No.1 Maharaj, where the Mohtmim. B through their co adequately safeguarded. It wa been procured on the basis of for ue authorities. In support of thes nt reported as AIR 1960 Keral lan Nayar and Others. e core question in this Regula learned lower Appellate Cour principle of res judicata, suf ackground of the former suit is suit was instituted by Sardara an raj through Rajinder Das (minor) agdish as next friend (defendan operty in dispute in the former present litigation i.e. Murti Tha aj at Morund. In the former suit

Whether Rajinder Das and B andir in dispute? OPP" e main contest in former suit w (Rajinder Das) was the Mohtm as defendant No.2 (Babu Lal) d Both defendants No.1 and 2 in f ounsel.

as further argued that the ear rged documents allegedly prepa se submissions, reliance was pla la 367, Narayanan Namburi a ar Second Appeal is whether rt, holding that the present suit ffer from any legal infirmity. to be seen. The record reveals t nd Jahara as plaintiffs against M ), Chela of Ram Das Chela Jamu nt No.1) and Babu Lal (defend r suit is identical to the prope akurjit Maharaj established Man t, the following issue was framed Babu Lal are the Mohtmims of was that, according to the plaint mim of the Mandir Murti Thaku denied this and asserted that he w former suit were jointly represen

rlier ared ced and t is To that urti una dant erty ndir d as f the tiffs ur Ji was

14.

Lea former suit, vid (Babu Lal) dec attained finality

15.

In major, suing as Mohtmim and i defendant. In n subsequent suit dispute in both s

16.

between co-def Jahara) are not p now arrayed as judicata applie satisfied:-

i) form

ii) sam

iii) in t

17.

Thi Civil Appeal N Cantonment Bo arned trial Court after hearing le de judgment dated 19.09.1975 claring him to be the Mohtmim after being upheld by the Hon'b the present subsequent suit, th Chela of the deity Murti Thakur in possession of the suit propert nutshell, co-defendants of former and litigating on the question of suits is thus identical as to who i w coming to the question of fendants, although the plaintiffs parties in the subsequent suit, th plaintiff and defendant in the su es between co-defendants wh There is a conflict of interes mer suit. The issue between them w me. The determination of that is the former suit. is principle has been affirmed No.8829 of 2010, decided o oard , where it was held that it

earned counsel for the parties in held in favour of defendant N m of the Mandir. This judgm ble High Court. he plaintiff is Rajinder Das, n r Ji Maharaj, claiming that he is ty. Babu Lal is again arrayed a r suit are plaintiff and defendan f Mohtmim of the deity. The cen s the Mohtmim of the Mandir? f the applicability of res-judic fs in the former suit (Sardara a he defendants in the former suit ubsequent suit. The principle of hen the following condition st between the co-defendants in was directly and substantially sue was necessary for the decis by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.07.2024 Har Narain is settled law that principle of

No.2 ment now as a nt in ntral cata and are f res are sion t in Vs.

judicata is appl between the co-d

18.

In Babul Lal as to substantially in favour of Babu in the subsequen Babu Lal (co-de Submission of l

19.

Lea improper repres suit and was no cannot be invok judgment of Ho and Others Vs. has been held as "15 on sub dep enf inc can as licable not only between the pla defendants. the present case, the inter se d o who is the Mohtmim of the issue in the former suit, but Lal. The absence of Sardara an nt suit does not prevent the bar efendant in former suit). learned counsel for the appella arned counsel for the appellant sentation contended that Rajind ot properly represented and ther ked against him. In support of h on'ble Kerala High Court in the Gopalan Nair and Another [1 s under:-

¶5The right of the minor to av account of the gross neglige bstantive right. It is not a mere pend on any rule of evidence forcing the substantive right simp convenience to the plain tiff in th e Evidence Act also does not sta nnot be defeated simply because one of the grounds of avoidi

aintiff and the defendants but a dispute between Rajinder Das a Mandir was not only directly a was also conclusively decided nd Jahara (plaintiffs in former s operating as between Rajinder a ant ts by taking plea of minority a der Das was a minor in the form refore, the principle of res judic his contention, he has relied upo case of Narayanan Namboorip 960 AIR (Kerala) 367], wherei void a decree obtained against h ence of his guardian ad litem e matter of procedure and does e. He cannot be prevented fr mply because this may cause loss he previous litigation. Section 44 and in the way. A substantive ri e gross negligence is not mention ing a judgment under Section

also and and d in uit) and and mer cata on a pad n it him m is not from s or 4 of ight

Evi per

20.

I h appellant and do

21.

distinguishable dispute to the se avoid decree ob for that matter p

22.

If R former suit, the the ground of im not, in the pre decree by plead finding of learne

23.

A m suit the ground defects, unless t Conclusion

24.

In v controversy in b This issue has a suit and the judg idence Act. The provisions rmissive and not prohibitive. have heard considered this cont o not find any force in it. e case law cited by learne from the facts and circumstance ettled propositions of law that it btained against him on the grou proper course is to challenge that Rajinder Das considered that he proper course of action was to mproper representation which he sent subsequent suit, indirectly ing improper representation as a ed lower Appellate Court is devo minor cannot avoid the applicat that the earlier decision was er the earlier decree is set aside in a view of finding above, this Cou both suits is identical, relating to already been finally adjudicated i gment therein stands affirmed up

of Section 44 Evidence Act tention of learned counsel for d counsel for the appellant es of the present case. There is is the substantive right of mino und of gross negligence. Howev t decree. was not properly represented in challenge the decree in that suit e has admittedly not done. He co y challenge validity of the ear a defence to res judicata. Thus, t oid of any force. tion of res judicata in a subsequ rroneous or suffer from procedu appropriate proceedings. urt comes to the conclusion that o the Mohtmimship of the Man in favour of Babu Lal in the form pto the High Court.

t is is s no r to ver, t on ould rlier this uent ural ndir.

25.

entertained in t judicata.

26.

Con Court may diffe barred by the pr appeal is dismi Court is upheld.

27.

28.

Pen

August 19, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe

e plea of minority and imp the subsequent suit as a mean nsequently, while the reasonin er from that of this Court, its u rinciple of res judicata is correc issed. The judgment and decr . order as to costs. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

proper representation cannot ns to defeat the application of ng of the learned lower Appell ultimate conclusion that the sui t and is accordingly affirmed. T ee of the learned lower Appell stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

be res late it is