Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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