Judgment regarding the dispute over land between the plaintiff-appellant, Har Narayan Tewari, and the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff-appellant, restoring the trial court's decision and rejecting the applicability of res judicata, which had been the basis for the reversal of the trial court's decree by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

1. Hearing Details

   • Senior counsels for both parties were heard.

2. Background of the Case

   • The Title Suit No.9/89 by Har Narayan Tewari was decreed in his favor in 2000.
   • The First Appellate Court reversed the decree in 2006, citing res judicata due to an earlier suit (Title Suit No.8/64).
   • The High Court dismissed the second appeal in 2009.

3. Plaintiff's Appeal

   • The plaintiff-appellant challenges the judgments of both the High Court and the First Appellate Court, claiming his suit is not barred by res judicata.

4. Details of the Disputed Land

   • The dispute involves 0.30 acres of land from Plot Nos.432 and 438 in Ramgarh.

5. Plaintiff's Claim to the Land

   • The plaintiff-appellant claims the land was settled in his favor by the Raja in 1942.

6. History of the Estate

   • The Estate of Raja was managed by the Court of Wards and released to the Raja in 1937.

7. Settlement by the Raja

   • The Raja settled the land with the plaintiff-appellant in 1942, confirmed by the Additional Collector in 1963.

8. Cantonment Board's Possession

   • The Cantonment Board was given 2.55 acres of land by the Raja, excluding the disputed land.

9. Earlier Suit by Maharani

   • Maharani filed Title Suit No.8/64 claiming the entire 5.38 acres, including the disputed land.

10. Compromise in Earlier Suit

• Maharani admitted the plaintiff-appellant's possession over the disputed land in a compromise.

11. Dismissal of Maharani's Suit

• Maharani's suit was dismissed in 1984 without adjudicating the rights of the co-defendants.

12. High Court's Dismissal of Second Appeal

• The High Court dismissed the second appeal without addressing the substantial question of law.

13. Substantial Question of Law

• Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata under Section 11 of CPC.

14. Conditions for Res Judicata

• No conflict of interest between co-defendants, and no adjudication of their rights in the previous suit.

15. Error in High Court Judgment

• The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal, as the substantial question of law was involved.

16. Conclusion on Res Judicata

• The principle of res judicata does not apply as the issues were not directly or substantially the same.

17. Claims of the Parties on Merits

• The court examines the respective claims on merits.

18. Evidence of Plaintiff's Claim

• Plaintiff's claim is supported by evidence, including rent receipts and orders from the Additional Collector.

19. Cantonment Board's Defense

• Cantonment Board's claim of adverse possession is not supported by evidence.

20. Settlement with Plaintiff-Appellant

• Plaintiff-appellant's settlement is confirmed by multiple documents and evidence.

21. Conclusion

• The plaintiff-appellant successfully proved ownership and possession of the suit land.

22. Final Judgment

• The appeal is allowed, and the trial court's decree is restored. The judgment of the High Court and First Appellate Court is set aside.

23. Order

• The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.