http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: OSMAN UMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MALAL ALIBHAI NATHU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 531        JT 1996 (3)    35  1996 SCALE  (2)213

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      This appeal  by  special  leave  arises  from  the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court  made on  February 12, 1976 in LPA No.67/74. In Jamnagar alias Nawanagar in Saurashtra Region of the Gujarat State,  there  are  four  sets  of  Muslims  by name,Gujarati  Aab,   Sidi  and  Patni.  The  appellant representing  Patni   Jamat  made   an  application  on 12.11.1951 to  the Mamlatdar  for  grant  of  occupancy certificate in support of Survey Nos.314 and 316 of the land for  use of  Kabristan etc.  The Mamlatdar granted the certificate.  Subsequently, on  representation made by other  Jamats, their  names also came to be included and that  had given  rise  to  the  endless  litigation culminating in  this case.  The  trial  Court  in  Suit No.151/66 decreed  the suit  granting declaration  that all the Jamats are jointly entitled to use the property for Kabristan  etc. Perpetual  injunction  was  granted against the  appellant for  interfering with the common use. On  appeal and  second  appeal,  the  trial  Court decree stood reversed. In LPA, the Division Bench under the impugned judgment, restored the decree of the trial Court. Thus, this controversy.      It is  contended  that  the  civil  Court  has  no jurisdiction over  the matters  on which  the Mamlatdar had power  to grant  occupancy certificates  and  that, therefore,  the   Division  Bench   was  not  right  in reversing the decree of the appellate Court and that of the learned  single Judge  and restoring  the decree of the trial Judge. The High Court has noted thus:      "We however,  do not  propose to go      to the extent of declaring that the      occupancy  certificate  granted  to      the defendant-jamat  in respect  of      the suit lands was void because the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    suit lands were not governed by the      Saurashtra Barkhali  Abolition Act,      1951.  It  is  sufficient  for  the      purpose of  the present case to say      that  the  three  Jamats  whom  the      plaintiffs   represent   were   not      parties    to     the     occupancy      certificate proceedings  and  that,      therefore,      the       occupancy      certificate does  not bind them nor      does it  is any  manner  whatsoever      injure, harm  or  adversely  affect      their rights to the suit lands.      In view  of this  finding the necessary conclusion is  that   the  occupancy  certificate  issued  on  the application dated  November 12,  1951 does not bind the respondent. It  is not  in dispute  that  in  1947  the application was  moved jointly  by all  the Jamats  and sanad was  given by  the erstwhile  Maharaja for common use by all the four Jamats. In that view of the matter, the finding  recorded by the High Court. as referred to earlier, is  perfectly legal  and  does  not  call  for interference.      The High Court further held’that:      "Firstly, the  plaint filed  in the      earlier suit, Ex.43, was based upon      the plaintiffs’  joint title to the      suit lands  which thy  derived from      the Sanad granted to the plaintiffs      and the  defendant by  the Maharaja      of Navanagar  on 14th  April, 1928.      That is  what has  been  stated  in      that plaint.  The present  suit  is      not based  upon that  Sanad. It  is      based  upon  the  subsequent  Sanad      which  the  Maharaja  of  Navanagar      granted to  the plaintiffs  and the      defendant on  10th July,  1947.  We      are of  the  view  that  the  Sanad      Ex.37, conferred upon the parties a      fresh title  to the  suit lands  on      10th July  1947 and that, therefore      what  had   happened  earlier   was      completely obliterated.  The  joint      title to  the  suit  lands  flowing      from the Sanad, Ex.37, commenced on      a clean slate with effect from 10th      July, 1947  when the Sanand Ex. 37,      was granted,  the earlier  suit was      instituted on 17th June, 1943, that      is to say prior to the grant of the      present   Sanand    Ex.   37.   The      plaintiffs’ cause of action for the      present  suit  is  based  upon  the      Sanad Ex. 37 which represents fresh      acquisition of  joint title  to the      suit lands  for them. What happened      in  the  earlier  suit,  therefore,      cannot   affect   in   any   manner      whatsoever the  joint  title  which      was conferred upon the plaintiff."      In the  light of the above finding, the contention that the earlier  suit which  was to  be  allowed  but  had  been dismissed for  non-prosecution operate  as a  res  judicata, bears title  force. Thus,  we hold  that the doctrine of res

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

judicata does not apply to the facts of this case.      There is  no illegality  committed by  the  High  Court warranting   interference.   The   appeal   is   accordingly dismissed. No costs.