MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

27 September 2024 3:30 PM

By: sayum


Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a review petition in Abdul Rashid Rather & Ors. vs. Nabir Rather & Anr., affirming that issues regarding the validity of adoption and will under Mohammadan law could not be re-litigated. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata applied, as these issues had already been conclusively settled in earlier litigation.

The case originated from a suit filed in 1966 by the predecessor of the respondents, seeking a declaration of ownership based on adoption by Mohammad Rather and challenging interference with the property by the defendant. The trial court, in 1974, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him the owner of a portion of the disputed land based on the adoption.

The case was appealed multiple times, with the first appellate court upholding most of the trial court's findings in 1987. The petitioners, who were the legal heirs of the defendant, did not challenge these findings at the time but later filed a second appeal raising the issue of adoption’s validity under Mohammadan law.

The primary issue was whether the adoption and will were valid under Mohammadan law, which traditionally does not recognize these concepts. The petitioners contended that the lower courts had erred in recognizing adoption and that the case raised a substantial question of law that merited reconsideration.

The petitioners also argued that the recent enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 2007 should affect the case, as it mandates inheritance strictly under Mohammadan law.

The High Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed the petition, holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the reconsideration of the adoption and will. The court emphasized that these issues were conclusively decided in earlier rounds of litigation and could not be reopened.

The court cited Satyadhyan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi (1960), a Supreme Court ruling affirming that once a court has decided a matter, the same issue cannot be re-litigated in subsequent stages of the same proceedings. Since the petitioners had not challenged the trial court's findings in the first appeal, they were precluded from doing so now.

The court also rejected the argument regarding the Shariat Act, stating that the law did not apply retroactively and was not relevant to property disputes settled before its enactment.

The review petition was dismissed, and the 1974 judgment declaring the validity of the adoption and will was upheld. The court ruled that no error was apparent on the face of the record, and the judgment did not merit reconsideration.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Abdul Rashid Rather & Ors. vs. Nabir Rather & Anr.​.

Latest Legal News