Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Custodian’s later application is not barred by res judicata because the cause of action arose only after the enactment of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, and the sale is set aside under section 17(2) of that ordinance.

Summary

Two brothers sold a half‑interest in their ice factory to Saghir Ahmed, who later became an evacuee. After a decree for the balance of consideration, Ahmed's properties were attached and sold in execution; Jaswant Singh, a decree‑holder, purchased them. The Custodian of Evacuee Property sought to set aside the sale under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, and later under Ordinance No. XII of 1949 and Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, but the lower courts dismissed the applications. The High Court Division Bench allowed the Custodian’s later application, holding that the new statutory provision (section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949) created a fresh cause of action not barred by the earlier order. The Supreme Court affirmed that the subsequent proceeding was not barred by res judicata because the cause of action arose only after the enactment of the 1949 ordinance, and the Custodian was entitled to set aside the sale.

Issues considered

The applicability of the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, and later statutes, to the court sale of attached evacuee property.
Whether the Custodian's application under section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 is barred by the doctrine of res judicata arising from the earlier order under the East Punjab Act.
Whether the date of attachment (October 9, 1947) falls within the statutory cut‑off dates for the different statutes.
Whether the Custodian made a proper application under the relevant statutory provision.

Legislation cited

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950s. 17
Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1951s. 17
Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners' Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XII of 1949)s. 15
Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949)s. 17, s. 2(f), s. 7
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 9 Rule 9, s. Section 11
East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947s. 6, s. 8

Subjects

res judicataevacuee propertycourt saleset asidestatutory amendmentcause of actioncivil procedureproperty law

Judgment

331

JASW ANT SINGH & ANR
A
v.

THE CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE
PROPERTY, NEW DELHI

May 7, 1985 B
[A.P. SEN AND E.S. VtNKATARAMIAH, JJ,j

East Punjab Evaeuees' (Administration of Property) Act 1947 Sections 6
and 8 Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Co1nmissioners' Pro•inces)
Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. XII of 1949, Section 15 Administration of Evacuee C
Proptrty Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949), Sections 2(f), 7 and 17.

Decree holder-Properties of judgment debtor attached by Court on
Ortobe« 9, 1947-Judgment debtor declared evacuee and property vesting in
Custodian Court auction sale of properties on October 16, 1948-Purchase by
decree holder-Setting aside of safe by Custodian whether n1aintai11ab!e-Crucial D
dates-December 31, 1947 under Section 8(2) of 1947 Act-August 14, 1947 under
section 17(2) ofOrdinauce XXVJI of 1949-App/icubility of

Civil ProCedure Code 1908!

Resjudicate-Principle-J.Fhen is a subsequent proceeding barred-Test for
determination.

Two brothers entered into an areegment to sell their interest in an Ice
Factory situated at Rawalpindi and received the advance money. As the vendee
failed to complete the transaction, a suit was filed by the brothers for specific
performance of the agreement and for recovery of the balance consideration.
The vendee remained exparate. A decree was passed by the Sub-Judge for
the balance of the consideration money and the vendee was given liberty to F
apply to the court to get a regular sale deed. During the pendency of this suit
the interest of one of the brothers was assigned in favour of the appellant who
was impleaded in the suit. The vendee left India and was declared an evacuee.
A Receiver was appoint~d for the properties of the vendee some of which were
attached on October 9, 1947 and put to sale in execution, but at the instance of
the aution-purchaser who became apprehensive on account of the judgment G
debtor being an evacuee, the sale was got set aside on July 10, 1948.

On July 17, 1944 an application was filed by the Custodian of Evacuee
Property under the Fast Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act
1947 claiming that the attached properties were evacuee properties and under
s. 8 were exempt from attachment. This application was dismissed on July H
19, 1948 on the ground that a Receiver was appointed by the court who was in
possession of the properties, and no step was taken by the Custodian under
s. 6.
332 SUPREME COURT RBPORTS (1985] SUPPL, s.c.R.

The attached properties were again brought to sale and on this occasion
the appellant purchased the properties and the sale was confirmed on October
16, 1948. The East Punjab Act having been amended in 1948, another applica-
tion was made hy the Custodian under the amended s. 8(2) of the Act on
December 11, 1948. This application was rejected on the ground that the said
provision was not applicable to court sales of property attached prior to
December 31, 1947.
B The Administration of Evacuee Property (Chief Commissioners'
Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 was promulgated on July 10, 1949. The Custodian
made an application under s. 15, on August 24, 194 for setting aside the sale
but this was dismissed for default on December 10, 1949. However, during the
pendency of this application another Ordinance the Administration of Evacuee
Property Ordinance 1949 (Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949) was promulgated
c with effect from October 18, 1949. l~he Custodian made an application on
December 12, 1949 both under order 9. rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure
1908 and under s.17(2) of Ordinance No, XXVIJ of 1949 for restoration of the
application dismissed for default on December 10, 1949, and for setting aside
the sale. The sub·court restored the application on February 11, 1950 but
after hearing the application on February 28, 1950 dismissed the same on
March 24, 1950.
D
The Custodian Hied an appeal before the High Court against the order of
the Suh-fudge, dated March 24, 1950, contending that the Sub-Judge had erred
in not considering the effect of s. 17 of Ordinance XXVII of 1949, but the
appeal was dismissed, on the ground that as the earlier order dated March
28, 1949 passed by the Sub-Judge on the basis of the Fast Punjab Act had
E became final, it was not open to the Custodian to reagitate the matter again
after the promulgation of Ordinance No. XXVll of 1949,

The Custodian filed a Letters Patent Appeal which was allowed by a
Division Bench on December 30, 1963, on the ground that by virtue ofs. 17 of
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 the sale in favour of the decree-holder/auction-
purchaser was liable to be set aside on the application made by the Custodian
F and the appiication made by the Custodian was not barred by the rule of
res judicata. The court sale, under which one of the decree-holders had
purchased the properties, was accordingly set aside.

Dismissing the appeal of the auction ourchaser.

G
HELD: I. Ordinance No. XXVll of 1949 was replaced by the Central
Act i.e. Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 1950 with effect from April
17, 1950. Section 17 of the Central Act was substituted with retrospective
effect by Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1951. The
only noticeable difference between s. 17 of the Central Act is that the date
H •August 14, 1947' ins. 17(2) of Ordiaance No. XXVII of 1949 is substituted by
'March 1, 1947'. Jn other respects, there is no material difference between the
provision. [340 D; GJ
IASWANT SINGH v. CSTDN. EVACUEE PRTY.

2. In order to decide the question wheter a subsequent proceeding is
barred b,Y res judicate it is necessary to examine the question with reference to A
the (i) foru_m or the competence of the Court, (ii) parties and their
representatives, (iii) matters in issue, (iv) matters which ought to have been
made ground for defence or attack in the former suit and (v) the final
decision. (341 DJ

In the instant case, there is no dispute that the patties and the properties B
involved in the proceedings in which the order dated March 28, 1949 was
passed and in the proceedings comrrenced by the applicaticin which has given
rise to this appeal are the same. The only point of difference; is that whereas
in the former proceedings, the Custodian had relied upon the provisions of
a. 8 of the East Punjab Act, in the present proceedings, reliance is placed on
tho provisions of s. 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVll of 1949 and s. 17(2) of
the Central Act. (341 E·FJ C

3. (i) The Sub-Judge had not referred to Ordinance No. XXVll of 1949
at all in his order. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of Ordinance No. XXVll of
1949 was wider in scope and content than s. 8 East Punjab Act. A comparison
or the two would show that "hereas s. 8(2) of the fa&! Punjab Act affected
sales of the properties by court which bad been attached after December D
31, 1947, s. 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 affected any transfer of
evacuee property under orders of a court or any other authority made after
the 14th day of August 1947. (342 C; D-FJ

3. (ii) In the present case the pro~crties in question bad been attached
by tht" court on Cctober 9, 1947 which was a date anterior lo December
31, 1947 which was the crucial date for purposes of s. 8(2) of the Fast Punjab E
Act but subsequent to August 14, 1947 which was the crucial date for purposes
of s. 17(2) of Ordinance No. xxvn of 1949. It was DOI, therefore, open to tho
Custodian to contend in his application which was disposed of by the Order

- dated March 28, 1949 that the court sale was liable to be set aside. The cause
of action for making that claim arose only after Ordinance No. XXVJI of 1945
was passed. [342 G-H]
F
4. A cause of action for a proceeding has no relation whatever to the
defence which may be set up, nor does it depend upon the character of the
relief prayed for the plaintiff or the applicant. It refers entirely to the grounds
set forth in the plaint or the application as the case may be as the cause of
action or in other words to tho media upon which the plaintiff or the applicant G
asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. [343 A-BJ

5. In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to
show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the p1aintiff
had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the former
proceedings. The test is whether the clain1 in the subsequent suit or proceedings H
is in fact founded upon the same cause of actio~ which was the foundation of
the former suit or procee~ings, (343 B-C]
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!985) SUPPL. S.C.R.

6. Jn the instant case, but for the new law contained in s. 17(2) of
A Ordinance No. XXVH of 1949 the Custodian would not have been able to
question the court sale. It therefore cannot be said that the present procee·
dings are barred by the rule of res jud;cata, even though in both the proceedings
the prayer made by the Custodian was that the sale of the properties in
question should be set aside. [343 C·Dl

C1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 648 of
B 1972.

From the Judgment and order dated 30.12.1963 of the Punjab
Circuit Bench at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal No. 32-D of
1985.
c
S.C Malik, S.P. Mahajan and Harbans Singh for the Appellants.

Miss Halida Khatun and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
VENKATARAMIAH, J. Sardar Mela Singh and Sardar Hari Singh
were brothers. They jointly owned an Ice Factory at Rawalpindi
which was known as 'Sat Kar•ar Ice Factory'. They entered into an
agreement on August 6, 1947 with one Saghir Ahmed, who was a
E resident of Delhi, to sell in his favour_one·half of their interest in the
said Ice Factory for a sum of Rs. 90,000 and received Rs. 5,000 by
way of advance. Saghir Ahmed agreed to pay the balance of
Rs. 85,000 and to'complete the sale transaction within a month but he
failed to do so. Saghir Ahmed having left India became an evacuee.
Sardar Mela Singh and Sarclar Hari Singh anticipating that
...
F Saghir Ahmed was likely to get possession of the Ice Factory
on the basis of the agreement to sell executed in his favour
instituted a suit in forma pauperis on October I, 1947 in Suit
No. 3 of 1947 on the file of the Senior Sub-Judge at Delhi for
specific performance of the agreement to sell and int et alia prayed
G for a decree for a sum of Rs. 85,000 which was the balance of
the consideration payable under the agreement to sell referred to
above and for Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the loss caused by
Saghir Ahmed in not completing the transaction of sale in time.
They stated that on his paying the balance of consideration, a sale
H deed may be obtained from them by Saghir Ahmed. Saghir Ahmed
emained ex parte and the suit was heard in his absence. On Novem-
ber 20, 1947 a decree was passed in the suit by the Sub-Judge, 1st
JASWANT SINGH v. CSTDN. LVAUCEB PRTY. (Vtnkataramlah, J.) 335

Class, Delhi against Saghir Ahmed; directing him to pay to Sardar
Mela Singh and Sardar Hari Singh, the plaintiffs in the suit. a sum A
of Rs. 86,00U along with costs of Rs. 2967 /8/. Saghir Ahmed was
given liberty to apply to the court to get a regular sale deed executed
by the plaintiffs. It may be stated here that during the pendency of
the suit the interest of Sardar Mela, Singh under the agreement had
· been assigned in favour of one Jaswant Singh, who was impleaded
B
as plaintiff No. , 3 in the suit. Thus Jaswant Singh became a decree-
holder under the decree passed, as stated above. That on October
3,1947 on an application made by the plaintiffs a Receiver was
appointed by the court to take possession of some of the properties
of· Saghir Ahmed. That on October 9, 1947 on an application made
by the plaintiffs certain •immovable properties belonging to Saghir · c
Ahmed,· namely residential' flats Nos. S and 7 together with some
shops which were situated in Panchkuian Road, New Delhi and
another immovable property situated in Ghee Mandi, Pahar Ganj,
Delhi were attached before judgment. After the decree was. passed
by the court, the attached properties were put to sale in execution,
but at the instance of the auction-purchaser, who apparently had
D
become' apprehensive on account of the status of Saghir Ahmed, who
• had become an evacuee, the sale was set aside on July 10, 1948 .
The Custodian of Evacuee Property; Delhi filed an·application before
the executing ·court on July 17, 1948 claiming that the attached pro-
perties ·were . evacuee properties under the East . Punjab Evacuees' E
(Administration of Property) Act, 1947 (East Punjab Act No. XIV of
19H) (hereinafter -referred to as 'the East Punjab Act'), which was
extended to Delhi also and that under section 8 of that Act all pro-
perties of which the Custo<lian had taken possession under section 6
thereof were exempt'from attachment. That application was dismissed
on July 19, 1948 on the ground that the Receiver appointed by the F
court was in posseS>ion or the properties and no steps had been
taken by the Custodian under section 6 of that Act. The attached
properties were again brought to sale and on this occasion· the pro-
perties were purchased by Jaswant Singh, one of the decree-holders.
The sale was confirmed on October 16, 1948. The East Punjab Act
was amended. in 1948. ·After such amendment sub-section (2) of
section 8 of that Act, as extended to Delhi, read as follows:
•
"8.(2l All subsisti~g ~ttachments of evacuees' pro- H
pperty effected after 31st December, 1947 under orders of
a Civil or Revenue Court ,or Officer or other authority ·•
shall cease to have any effect, and all sales, leases or other
A
336 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS
""~~,.. '·'·'·
forms of alienation by any Court, Officer or authority q ,f
such property effected after the above mentioned dat~·
shall be liable to be set aside at the instance of the Cus- \
todian on an application filed before the Court, officer or •
authority which ordered the sale, lease or alienation, as
the case may be, within three months of the coming into
B force of East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Pro·
perty) (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1948, or the date
of the sale, lease or alienation whichever is later."

After the said amendment, the Custodian ·of the Evaduee
Property made another application on December 11, 1948 before the
c learned Sub-Judge claiming that the sale of the properties by the t
court was ineffective since the sale had taken place after December
31, 1947. That application was rejected by the learned Sub-Judge \
holding that the said provision did not affect the court sales of \
D
properties which had been attached prior to December 31, 1947 and
that in the instant case the properties that had been sold had been
attached on October 9, 1947. The said order of the learned Sub-Judge \
was passed on March 28, 1949 and it became final.

Thereafter on June 13, 1949 the Governor-General of India
\
passed an ordinance cal!ed the Administration of Evacuee Property
E (Chief Commissioners, Provinces) Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No.
XII of 1949). Section 15 of that Ordinance provided-

"15. Exemption from attachment, sale etc.-

(I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Or-
F dinance, no property which has vested in the Custodian
shall be liable to attachment, distress or sale in execution
of a decree or order of a Court or any other authority,
and no injunction in respect of any such property shall be
granted by any Court or other authority.
G
(2) Any attachment or injunction subsisting on the
commencement of this Ordinance in respect of any
evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian shall
cease to have effect on such commencement, and any
H transfer on such property under the orders of a Court or
any other authority made after such date as may be speci-
fied in this behalf with reference to any Province by the
JASWANT SINGH v. CSTDN. EVACUEE PRTY. (Venkataramiah, J.) 337

Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette,
shall be set aside if an application is made to such Court A
or authority by or at the instance of the Custodian within
three months from the commencement of thii Ordi·
nance."

On the basis of the above provision, the Custodian made an
B
application before the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Delhi oa August 24, 1949
for setting aside the sale. That application was dismissed for default
on December 10, 1949. But during the pendency of the said appli·
cation the Governor-General had promulgated another ordinance
called The Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949
(Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949) hereinafter referred to as 'Ordinance c
No. XXVII of 1949') which came into force with effect from October
18, 1949.

Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 provided for the administration
of evacuee property ~nd for certain other matters connected there-
with. Under clause (i) of section 2 (d) of Ordinance No. XXVII of
D
1949 a person, who on account of the setting up of the Dominions
of India and Pakistan or on account of civil disturbances or the fear
of such disturbances had left any place in any part of India for any
place outside India, was treated as an evacuee. Saghir Ahmed, it is
not disputed, was an evacuee falling within the said definition. E
Section 2 (f) of Ordinance No. XXVJI of 1949 defined the expression
'evacuee property' thus :

"2. (f) "evacuee property" means any property in
which an evacuee has any right or interest (whether F
personally or as a trustee or as a beneficiary or in any
other capacity), and includes any property-

(I) which has been obtained by any person from an
evacuee after the 14th day of August, 1947, by any mode
of transfer, unless such transfer has been confirmed by G
Custodian, or

(2) belonging to any person who, after the com-
mencement of this Ordinance, does any of the acts speci- H
fied in clause (e) of section 2, or in which any such person
has any right or interest, to the extent of such right or
interest, but does not include-
338 SUPR!!MB COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.

(i) any ornament and any wearing apparel, cooking
A vessels or other household effects in the immediate posses-
sion of an evacnee;

(ii) any property belonging to a joint stock company
the registered office of which was situated before the 15th
day of August, 1947, in any place no forming part of
B
Pakistan and continues to be so situated after the said
date;"

Section 7 of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 empowered the
Custodian appointed thereunder to pass an order declaring any pro•
c perty, which satisfied'.the definition in section 2 (f) thereof as 'evacuee
property' and on such declaration being made such property vested
in the Custodian by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 8 thereof. It
provided that where immediately before the commencement of
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 any evacuee property bad vested in
any person exercising the powers of a Custodian under any law
D repealed by Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, such evacuee property
would on the commencement of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 be
deemed to have vested in the Custodian appointed or deemed to
have been appointed for the area under Ordinance No. XXVII of
1949 and would continue to so vest. It is again not disputed that the
E properties of Sagbir Ahmed which bad been attached in the suit and
which bad been sold through court bad also vested in the Custodian
under Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 by virtue of section 8(2)
thereof. It is now necessary to refer to the crucial provision in
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 insofar as this appeal is concerned.
Section 17 of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 read as follows:

"17. (I) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this
Ordinance, no property which has vested in the Custodian
shall be liable to attacbruent, distress or sale in execution
of an order of a Court or of any other authority, and no
G injunction in respect of any such property shall be granted
by any Court or other authority.

(2) Save as othewise expressly provided in. this Ordi-
nance, any attachment or injunction subsisting on the
commencement of this Ordinance in respect of any
H
evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian shall
ce\l,se to have effect on sµch commencement, and anr
I
I
!
JASWANT SINOJH v. CSTDN. EVACUEE PRTY. (Vankataramiah, J.) 339

transfer / of evacuee property under orders of a Court or
any otliler authority made after the 14th day of August, A
1947, sihall be set aside, if an application is made to such
Court' or authority ~by or at the instance of the Custodian
withit 1 three months from the commencement of this
Ordj:nance."
I
B
It: may be noted that under sub-section (2) of section 17 of
Ordinaruce No. XXVII of 1949 any transfer of evacuee property
under 1 orders of a court or any other authority made after August
14, IS147 was liable to be set aside if an application was made to such
cour'. t or authority by or at the instnnce of the Custodian within three
mo•nths from the commencement of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949. c
!
! Now reverting to the narration of events, on December 15,
19'49 the Custodian made an application dated December 12, 1949
b\Jth under Order 9, rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
uilider section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 praying for D
11estoration of the application which had been dismissed for default
I on December I 0, 1949 and for setting aside the sale as provided by
i section 17(2) of Ordin&nce No. XXVII of 1949. The application
J dated August 24, 1949 was restored on February 11, 19 50 and that
apalication was heard on February 28, 1950. The application was

I dismissed on March 24; 1950. E

I Against the order of the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated
I March 24, 1950 the Custodian filed and appeal No. 97 of before the
High Court of Punjab and one of the grounds urged in the course of
that appeal was that the learned Sub-Judge had erred in not consider- F
I ' ing the effect of section 17 of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 on the
case. That appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court
/ of Punjab at Chandigarh on August 26, 1958.

' The learned Single Judge dismissed that appeal on August 26,
G
1958 on the ground that as the earlier order dated March 28, 1949
passed by the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, !Jelbi on the basis of the East
Punjab Act had become final, it was not open to the Custodian to
reagitate the matter again after the promulgation of Ordinance No.
XII of 1949 by the Governor,General. Surprisingly, the learned
Single Judge did not also refer to Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 and .H
the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of
\ I

34() SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 19&~ 5) SUPPL. S.C.R.

1950) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Central A.ct') which; had replaced
A the said ordinanco.

Against the judgment of the learned Singlo 1udgc,·· the Custo·
dian filed an appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No. 32:-D of 1958
before the High Court of Punjab. That appeal was hf(llrd by a
Division Bench and it came to be allowed on December' 30, 1963.
B The Division Bench held that by virtue of section 17 of O'trdinance
No. XXVII of 1949 the sale in favour of the decree-holder/auction·
purchaser was liable to be set aside on the application made 1by the
Custodian and the application made by the Custodian was not barred
by the rule of res judicata. The Division Bench accordingly set 'aside
c the court sale, under which one of the decree-holders had purcha.sed
the properties. This appeal by certificate ii filed against the ~aid
decision of the Division Bench.

Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is necessary t:o
state that Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 was replaced by the Ceniral
D Act i.e. Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 with eff~ct
from April 17, 1950. Section 17 of the Central Act was substitute~
with retrospective effect by the Administration of Evacuee Property,
(Amendment) Act, 1951 (Act XXII of 1951). Section 17(21 of the\
Central Act read as follows :
E
"17. (2) Where, after the !st day of March, 1947, any
evacuee property which has vested in the Custodian or is
\
l
deemed to have vested in the Custodian under the provi- .
I
F
sions of this Act has been sold in execution of any decree
or order of any Court or other authority, the sale shall
be set aside if an application in that behalf has been
-
made by the Custodian to such Court or authority on or
I
before the 17th day of October, 1950."
\
The only noticeable difference between section 17 of Ordinance \
G
No. XXVII of 1949 and section 17 of the Central Act is that the
date 'August 14, 1947' in section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of
'-
1949 is subsituted by 'March 1, 1947'. In other respects, there is no
material difference between the provisions of Ordinance No. XXVII
of 1949 and the Central Act insofar as the question which arises for
consideration in this appeal is concerned.
H
The main ground urged in support of the above appeal by the
appellants Qf whom a~ellant No. I, Jaswant Sin~h is the auction•
iASWANT siNoli v. CSTDN. EVACUEE PRTY. (PenkatlJl'amiah, J.) 341

purchaser, is that the order dated March 28, 1949 passed by the
Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Delhi having become final, it would operate as A
a bar to any enquiry into the application which had been made by
the Custodian after the promulgation of Ordinance No. XII of 1949
and Ordinace No. XXVII of 1949. This ground is based on the
principles underlying section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
That section provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in
which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly
B
and substantially in issue in a former suit between the rnme parties,
or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating
under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent
suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and
has been heard and finally decided by such court. Explanation IV to c
that section provides that any matter which might or ought to have
been made a ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be
deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
It is well settled that in order to decide the question whether a sub-
sequent proceeding is barred by res judicata it is necessary to examine
the question with reference to the (i) forum or the competer.ce of the D
.. Court, (ii) parties and their representatives, (iii) matters in issue, (iv)
matters which ought to have been made ground for defence or attack
in the former suit and (v) the final decision. In the instant case there
is no dispute that the parties and the properties involved in the pro-
ceedings in which the order dated March 28, 1949 was passed and E
in the proceedings commenced by the application which has given
rise to this appeal are the same. The only point of difference between
them however i1 that whereas in the former proceedings, the Custo-
dian had relied upon the provisions of section 8 of the East Punjab
Act, in the present proceedings reliance is placed by him on the
provisions of section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 and F
section 17(2) of the Central Act. Section 8 of the East Punjab Act
which was relied on by the Custodian in the earlier proceedings
stated that all subsisting attachments of evacuee property effected

- after December 31, 1947 under orders of a Civil or Revenue court or
an officer or other authority would cease to have any effect, and all
sales, leases or other forms of alienation by any court, officer or
G
authority of such property effected after the above mentioned date
were liable to be set aside at the ins1ance of the Custodian on an
application filed before the court, officer or authority concerned. The
application made by the Custodian under that provision was dismis- B
sed by the Sub-Jud&e, 1st Class, Delhi as already mentioned on the
342 SUPREMll COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. s.c.R.

ground that the attachment of the properties involved in the case had
A been effected prior to December 31, 1947 and, therefore, the sale of
those properties was not assailable under section 8 of the East Punjab
Act. The next application with which we are concerned in this appeal
was flied by the Custodian on August 24, 1949 before the court. By
then Ordinance No. XII of 1949 had been promulgated. Ordinance
No XXVII of 1949 which came into force on October 18, 1949
8
during the pendency of that application had repealed and replaced
Ordinance No. XII of 1949, and therefore the Sub-Judge, 1st Class,
Delhi should have taken into consideration the provisions of Ordi-
nance No. XXVII of I 949 on March 24, 19 50 when he disposed of
the said application. As mentioned earlier, the learned Sub-Judge had
c not referred to Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 at all in the course of
his order. Sub-section (2) of section 17 of Ordinance No. XXVII of
1949 was wider in its scope and content than section 8 of the East
Punjab Act which arose for consideration at the time when the order
dated March 28, 1949 was passed by the court. Section 17(2) of
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 which conferred a new right on the
D Custodian provided that any transfer of evacuee property under
orders of a court or any other authority made after the 14th day of
August, 1947 was liable to be set aside if an application was made to
such court or authority by or at the instance of the Custodian within
three months from the commencement of the Ordinance. A com-
E parison of section 8(2) of the East Punjab Act with section 17(2) of
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 would show that whereas section
8(2) of the East Punjab Act affected sales of properties by court
which had been attached after December 31, 1947, section 17(2) of
Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 affected any transfer of evacuee
property under orders of a court or any other authority made after
F the 14th day of August, 1947. In the present case the properties in
question had been attached by the court on October 9, 1947 which
was a date anterior to December 31, 1947 which was the crucial date
for purposes of section 8(2) of the East Punjab Act but subsequent
to August 14, 1947 which was the crucial date for purposes of ·
G section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949. It was not, there-
fore, open to the Custodian to contend in his application which was
disposed of by the order dated March 28, 1949 that the court sale
was liable to be set aside. The cause of action for making that claim
arose only after Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 was passed. A cause
H of action for a proceeding has no relation whatever to the defence
which may be set up, nor does it depend upon the character of the
iASWANT SINGH v. CSTDN. EVACUEE PRTY. (Yenkataramiah, J.) 343

relief prayed for by the plaintiff or the applicant. It refers entirely to
the grounds set forth in the plaint or the application as the case may A
be as the cause of action or in the other words to the media upon
which the plaintiff or the applicant asks the court to arrive at a
conclusion in his favour. In order that a defence of res judicata may
succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was
the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the
... relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is
whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact
B

founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of
the former suit or proceedings. In the instant case but for the new
law contained in section 17(2) of Ordinance XXVII of 1949 the
Custodian would not have been able to question the court sale in c
question. Since the Custodian could not, therefore, have asked for
the relief which he claimed in the application which has given rise to
this appeal before March 28, 1949 it cannot be said that the present
proceedings are barred by the rule of res judicata, even though in both
the proceedings the prayer made by the Custodian was that the sale
of the properties in question should be set aside. We are, therefore,
D
of the view that the Division Bench was right in holding that the
present proceedings were not barred by the rule of res judicata.

One other submission made on behalf of the appellants in this E
case is that no application had been made by the Custodian relying
expressly upon section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949. There
'
is no substance in this submission because we find that there is a
specific reference to the said provision in the application dated
December 12, 1949, filed before the court of the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, F
Delhi on December 15, 1949. This application is referred to by the
Sub-Judge at the commencement of this order dated March 24, 1950
while the application dated August 24, 1949 is referred to in the
third paragraph of that order. It appears from that order that the
Sub-Judge had consolidated both the applications and disposed them
of together by the same order though he failed to apply the provisions G
of section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949. Hence it cannot
be accepted that no fresh application had been made after Ordinance
No. XXVII of 1949 had come into force.

H
In the result, we affirm the decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court of Punjab and dismiss the appeal.
344 SUPREME COURT REPOilTS (198$) SUPPL. s.c.a.

We, however, make it clear that the setting aside of the court
A sale does not come in the way of any other remedy open to the
decree-holders in the instant case to recover the amount which may
be due to them under the decree from the judgment debtor or the
Custodian or any other authority. Any proceedings that may be
initiated by the decree-holders for realising the amount due to them,
shall be disposed of by the concerned authority in accordance with
B
law. There will be no order as to costs. ...
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.