Case Name : Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457
Author : Pallabi Paul
AIR 1961 SC 1457
Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
In the case of Daryao & Others v. State of UP & Others, the Apex Court has placed the doctrine of Res Judicata on a high level, this concept forms the basis of the general rule of Res Judicata and can not be regarded as invalid or inadmissible except when dealing with fundamental rights in petitions lodged pursuant to Article 32. In certain cases , the court held that if a petition lodged by a party pursuant to Article 226 is deemed in good faith and dismissed, the decision so pronounced constitutes Res Judicata.
The ancestors of the petitioners and petitioner himself were land tenants and the respondents are the owners of that land for the last fifty years . Due to communal disturbances in the western district of Uttar Pradesh in 1947, the petitioners left their village; later, on their return in November 1947, they discovered that, during their temporary absence, the petitioners had entered the place without prior authorization. Since the said respondents refused to grant the petitioners ownership of the land, the petitioners had to file suits for ejection under .
The petitioners succeeded in the trial court and a decree was passed in their favour. The said decree was upheld in appeal by respondents and a second appeal was then favoured by the respondents before the Board of Revenue. The Board allowed the appeal to be preferred by the respondents and rejected the petitioner’s suit with respect to the land, while the appeals of the said respondents with respect to other lands were rejected.
The decision of Board was focused on the ground under U.P. Respondents to Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform (Amendment) Act XVI of 1953 were entitled to the possession of the land. Under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners moved the High Court of Allahabad to issue a writ of the land grieved by this decision. Certiorari to quash the decision. Full Bench of Allahabad High Court had already interpreted s before the said petition was filed. 20 The U.P. The Land Reforms Act as amended by 1953 Law XVI.
The consequence of the said decision was clearly against the arguments of the petitioners, and so on the qualified lawyer who appeared for the petitioners had no alternative but had no option to file a petition with the High Court. Consequently the was then that the petitioners filed the petition under Art. 32 of the Supreme Court.
It was clear that the limitation period allowed for an appeal under Art. 136 against the dismissal of the petitioner’s request before the Allahabad High Court had already expired at the time the present petition had been filed. Also it was clear that the ground.
ISSUES AND FACT OF LAW
Even after a judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it was a constitutional right under 32(1) and that the question of Res Judicata would not be addressed.
Whether there is substance in the argument that the High Court ‘s judgment should be viewed as Res Judicata, as Article 226 states of the Indian Constitution?
The Court is satisfied that a change in the form of an attack against the statute at issue would not affect the true legal position
The written petition in the High Court and the present petition in writing are directed against the same statute and the petitioner’s reasoning in
This is a substantially the same name. At last the writ petition was dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
If a petition pursuant to Article 226 is deemed to be a contested matter on its merits and is dismissed, the decision would continue to bind the parties unless otherwise amended or reversed in appeal or other appropriate proceedings permitted under the Constitution.