Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
MUKHTIAR AHMED v.
SMT. HUSAN BANO AND ORS. FEBRUARY 14, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Code of Civil procedure, 1908 Section 11-Res Judicata-Suit filed by co-sharer-Finding recorded that he was entitled to 1/5th share in the prope1ty and not 2/Jrd share-Subsequent suit for declaration that he was entitled to 2/Jrd share-Finding in earlier suit operates as res judicata-Hence subsequent suit 1ightly dismissed by the High Court.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1812 of D 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.78 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1341 of 1968. R.K. Mehta for the Appellants.
Aseem Mehrotra and P.K. Jain for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The appellant had laid the suit for declaration of 2/3rd share of the house in his favour, on the premise that he was a co-owner. It is not in dispute that on a previous occasion in a suit filed by the co-sharer, a finding was recorded that he was not entitled for 2/3rd share but to l/5th share. The said decree became final. In view. of the matter, it operates as res judicata as against the co-owners. He cannot claim any share in the suit for 2/3rd share. The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the suit. We do not think there is any legality in the finding recorded by the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. H
G.N.