Case Summary
| Citation | Daryao v. State of UP AIR 1961 SC1457 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Daryao and Others vs. The State of UP and Others on March 27, 1961. The case is also known as AIR 1457, 1961 SCR (1). The following are the case‘s facts: The land specified in the petition was leased by the petitioner and their ancestors. within the said land. An annexure that is part of the petition states that the respondents have owned the property for fifty years. The petitioners left their hamlet in July 1947 due to racial unrest in Uttar Pradesh‘s Western District; upon their return in November 1947, they discovered that the respondents had illegally entered into possession during their brief absence. The case involves a writ petition filed in accordance with Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution and the interpretation and application of the res judicata doctrine. Based on the broad idea of res judicata, the court concluded that a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the same circumstances and for the same remedy should be dismissed. |
| Issues | If a case is determined or dismissed on the merits, does the doctrine of res judicata apply? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The case is notable because it clarified and expanded the Res Judicata doctrine. The theory, which was examined in the context of a petition relative to Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, was covered in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. The issue arose was whether or not a party‘s plea for relief filed in a writ petition should be dismissed. This ruling has an effect on future cases in India since it established that a comparable petition filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 on the basis of a part-petitioner‘s dismissal of a writ petition seeking relief or remedy before the high court sets a bar of res judicata. Requesting the same or similar writ while praying for comparable facts. This means that if a writ petition is denied by a High Court, no comparable petition may be brought under Article 32 at the Supreme Court, requesting the same or a similar relief, on the same grounds. This has made it easier to avoid needless litigation and ensure that judicial rulings are definitive. |
| Judgement | It established the applicability of res judicata to writ petitions and provided a balanced approach that ensures both the finality of judgments and the protection of fundamental rights. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority | The Court recognized certain exceptions to the application of res judicata in constitutional matters. For example, if a fundamental right is violated, a subsequent petition may be filed even if a previous petition was dismissed on technical grounds. |
1 comment
[…] 46.Daryao v. State of UP AIR 1961 SC145747. Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969)1 SCC 11048. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 […]