The court’s analysis in a recent case involving a dispute over exclusive possession and easement rights in a passage highlights the intricate aspects of property law. The case explores the application of res judicata and the significance of previous findings in subsequent legal proceedings. Let’s delve into the legal intricacies of the court’s analysis in this complex property law matter.
Facts
- The First Appellate Court decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim.
- The respondent-plaintiff was found to be entitled to exclusive possession of the passage mentioned in the sale deed.
- The right of the appellants-defendants was limited to opening windows and ventilators in the said passage.
- The High Court in Second Appeals affirmed the findings of the First Appellate Court.
- The First Appellate Court affirmed the trial Judge’s order stating that the respondent-plaintiff did not have an exclusive right to the disputed passage.
- During the pendency of the third suit, the appellants-defendants made a statement which influenced the decision of the First Appellate Court.
- The respondent-plaintiff had filed multiple suits against the appellants-defendants regarding the disputed passage and construction activities.
- The counter claim by the appellants-defendants for removal of bricks in the passage was decreed in their favor.
- The respondent-plaintiff withdrew the second suit during the legal proceedings.
- Appeals were filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the decrees passed in the lower courts.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The counsel for the appellants argues that the First Appellate Court and High Court wrongly interfered with the Trial Court’s judgement.
- The counsel cites cases like R. Unnikrishnan & Anr. Vs. V.K. Mahanudevan and Ors. and K. Arumuga Velaiah Vs. P.R. Ramasamy & Anr. to support the argument.
- The counsel asserts that the finding affirmed by the High Court in the Second Appeal operates as res judicata.
- The counsel argues that it was not appropriate for the First Appellate Court and High Court to go against the findings of the First Appellate Court in the initial round of proceedings.
- While relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, the counsel mentions that findings from earlier proceedings can serve as res judicata in subsequent proceedings, but in this case, those judgments do not apply.
- The respondent-plaintiff contends that the First Appellate Court and the High Court correctly determined that the respondent-plaintiff had the right to exclusive possession of the passage mentioned in the sale deed.
- According to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellants-defendants only had the right to open windows and ventilators in the passage.
- Therefore, the respondent argues that no interference is necessary in the present appeals based on these conclusions.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- During the first round of proceedings, the Appellate Court was not required to make observations on the exclusive possession of the said passage since it was not in question at that time.
- The Trial Court ruled that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to possession of the passage but could not construct a latrine due to affecting the easement rights of the defendants.
- The main issue in the first round was whether the respondent-plaintiff could construct the latrine in the passage; the rights of the defendants were not addressed in that proceeding.
- The Appellate Court should have limited its findings in the first round to the question of whether the respondent-plaintiff could construct the latrine in the passage.
- The issue in the first suit was limited to the right of the respondent-plaintiff to construct the latrine in the passage.
- The exclusive entitlement of the respondent-plaintiff to possession was not considered in the earlier rounds but directly addressed in the third round.
- No reason was found to interfere with the concurrent orders of the First Appellate Court and the High Court.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- Pending applications disposed of
- Appeals dismissed
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR MODI Vs. TARSEM KUMAR GUPTA (2022 INSC 961)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004736-004737 / 2011
