Judgment 1. Joginder Pal alias Joginder Nath filed suit for mandatory injunction against Punjab and Sind Bank, Police Lines Road, Gurdaspur and District Red cross Society (in short the Society), Gurdaspur, defendants 1 and 2 respectively, directing them to disclose the locker number lying with defendant No. 1 in which the property of Ms. Raj Mohini including ornaments has been deposited after her death that took place on 27-4-88 and further directing defendant No. 2 to hand over the keys of said locker number and direct defendant No. 1 to allot the plaintiff to operate that locker. It is alleged in the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the real maternal uncles son of Ms. Raj Mohini who executed will dated 12-6-87 in his favour which is a genuine and valid will. She died on 27-4-88 leaving behind this will as her last will and testament. He has become owner of all moveable and immovable property of Ms. Raj Mohini on the strength of that will. District Red Cross Society, Gurdaspur illegally, without any authority took hold of the entire property of Ms. Raj Mohini including her moveable assets and misappropriated them. Plaintiff filed civil suit No. 23 of 1992 directing the society to disclose all moveable and immovable property but the society replied in that case that the society had not taken hold of any property of Ms. Raj Mohini nor the society was in possession of moveable or immovable property of Ms. Raj Mohini. In the said case, Om Parkash Executive Secretary of the Society appeared on 8-10-92 and stated that they had seized the property of Ms. Raj Mohini which was lying in their custody. He had also stated that some ornaments of Ms. Raj Mohini were also deposited in Punjab and Sind Bank in locker No. 212 which was opened in the name of the society. He disclosed the contends of the locker also. It was submitted that Ms. Raj Mohini revoked will dated 2-4-85 which had been executed in favour of the society and the genuine and valid will had been executed on 12-6-87 in his favour. During her lifetime Raj Mohini moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur requesting for the withdrawal of will dated 2-4-85 and Shri D.S. Kalha, Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur vide order dated 10-2-88 permitted her to withdraw the will. During her lifetime Raj Mohini moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur requesting for the withdrawal of will dated 2-4-85 and Shri D.S. Kalha, Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur vide order dated 10-2-88 permitted her to withdraw the will. It was further submitted that the society filed false and frivolous succession case No. 10 of 1989 with a view to obtaining succession certificate relating to the property of Ms. Raj Mohini. In that case issues were framed and validity of will dated 2-4-85 and 12-6-87 was considered by Shri S. C. Arora, Sub-Judge First Class, Gurdaspur. Shri Kartar Singh who was produced by the society as witness had admitted that will dated 2-4-85 had been revoked by Raj Mohini and further admitted that when an application for withdrawal of will was moved by Raj Mohini, she was identified by A. S. Diwana, Advocate. It was submitted that the society illegally detained all the moveable property and hence committed criminal breach of trust etc. Society filed appeal which was dismissed by Shri I.C. Aggarwal, District Judge Gurdaspur on 20-8-96 and declared that plaintiff was the only legal heir and successor of Ms. Raj Mohini. It was submitted that succession case under S. 388(3) of the Indian Succession Act is final. Society has intentionally denied having propounded panchnama of the list of moveable property under Ss. 11, 12 of the Red Cross Act, society can receive only gift. Will cannot be equated with gift. Under Ss. 223, 236 of the Indian Succession Act, society can obtain succession certificate. It was also submitted that no further separate succession certificate was needed regarding locker and claimed that he is lawful owner of the property of Raj Mohini. probate case was filed in the Court of Shri Bihari Lal, Sub-Judge First Class, Gurdaspur and the society moved application under Sec. 10, CPC for staying the proceedings of the probate case saying that the same matter was involved in the succession case. 2. Defendant-society contested the suit urging that the plaintiff is not entitled to compel the society for the performance of the act as sought in the relief of mandatory injunction. It was also urged that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be stayed under S. 10, CPC as similar suits are pending. It was denied that the plaintiff was the maternal uncles son of Raj Mohini. It was also urged that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be stayed under S. 10, CPC as similar suits are pending. It was denied that the plaintiff was the maternal uncles son of Raj Mohini. It was denied that Raj Mohini executed any will in favour of the plaintiff on 12-6-87. Rather she had executed a valid will dated 2-4-85 in favour of the society whereby she had bequethed the entire of her estate in favour of the society. It was denied that Ms. Raj Mohini sought to withdraw the will dated 2-4-85 and D.C. Gurdaspur permitted her to withdraw that will dated 2-4-85 vide order dated 10-2-88. It was denied that the society is bound by any admission of Kartar Singh that the will dated 2-4-85 had been revoked by Raj Mohini. Order granting succession certificate qua the debts/securities which were the subject matter of the succession case are not final and nor can the decision given in succession case operate as decision regarding any property beyond those debts or securities. 3. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction prayed for? OPD 2. Whether present suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC as alleged? OPD 3. Whether suit is liable to be stayed under S. 10, CPC as alleged? OPD.2 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 2 5. Whether suit has not been propertly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD.2 6. Relief. 4. Vide order dated 24-12-98, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur decreed the plaintiffs Suit for mandatory injunction directing the society to hand over the articles as contained in list Ex. P1 to the plaintiff in view of his finding that will dated 2-4-85 had been revoked by Raj Mohini and it had been returned to her on 5-2-88 and that Raj Mohini had executed valid will dated 23-6-87 in favour of the plaintiff which was her last will and testament. It was found that in view of the succession certificate having been granted in favour of the plaintiff, he was entitled to moveable assets left by Raj Mohini as per succession certificate. It was found that in view of the succession certificate having been granted in favour of the plaintiff, he was entitled to moveable assets left by Raj Mohini as per succession certificate. It was found that in this case the plaintiff sought to obtain possession of the articles left by Raj Mohini which were taken into possession by the society and deposited in safe custody in locker with defendant No. 1. It was found that the Court could not ignore the grant of succession certificate in favour of the plaintiff where will dated 12-6-87 was relied upon to have been executed by Raj Mohini in favour of the plaintiff. It was found that succession certificate will enure till the same is annulled by the Court. 5. Defendant-society went in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 19-8-2000. Still not satisfied, defendant society has come up in further appeal to this Court. 6. In this RSA, the only question that requires determination is whether the findings recorded in the application for the grant of succession certificate will or will not operate as res judicata so far as will dated 12-6-87 set up by Joginder Pal alias Joginder Nath is concerned in re : the right to operate locker obtained by the society in the Punjab and Sind Bank being claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of will dated 12-6-87. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant (society) submitted that the decision granting succession certificate in favour of Joginder Pal cannot operate as any decision so far as the suit for mandatory injunction, whereby he has prayed for a mandate to the society to supply him the locker number having been obtained by it in Punjab and Sind Bank Branch Gurdaspur, is concerned. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Joginder Pal V/s. Indian Red Cross Society (AIR 2000 SC 3279) Civil Appeal No. 5664 of 2000 arising out of SLP (C) No. 17208 of 1999 titled Joginder Pal V/s. Indian Red Cross-society where it was held that merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, does not mean that the findings given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even in summary proceedings, issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led. Even in summary proceedings, issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the Court may in its discretion permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So, in a subsequent suit, the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any findings made in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate. Hon ble Supreme Court made these observations on the following facts : "Ms. Raj Mohini possessed immovable and moveable properties. She executed will dated 2-4-85 in favour of the Indian Red Cross Society. Joginder Pal is related to Ms. Raj Mohini. He is the son of the maternal uncle of the lady. On 12-6-87, Ms. Raj Mohini executed another will by which she cancelled the earlier will and bequeathed all her properties to Joginder Pal. The said Ms. Raj Mohini died on 27-4-86. Indian Red cross Society applied for succession certificate in respect of immovable assets of Ms. Raj Mohini. They claimed to be beneficiaries under the will dated 2-4-85. When Joginder Pal learnt about this application, he got himself impleaded as party to that application. He also filed petition for probate of the will dated 12-6-87. The Indian Red Cross-Society applied for stay of the proceedings in probate under S. 10, CPC on the ground that the purpose and issues in the probate petition and application for succession certificate were the same. The probate petition was stayed. In application for succession certificate, the Court raised issues as follows : (1) Whether Ms. Raj Mohini executed will dated 2-4-85 in favour of the Indian Red Cross Society as alleged? (2) Whether Mr. Raj Mohini executed valid will in favour of Joginder Pal on 12-6-87 as alleged? Succession certificate was granted to Joginder Pal in respect of will dated 12-6-87. Joginder Pal withdrew his probate petition. On 20-8-96, appeal filed by the society was dismissed. Revision filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court on 10-10-96. Society then filed suit for declaration that they were lawful owner and in possession of the assets of the deceased Ms. Raj Mohini. They laid claim on the will dated 2-4-85. Joginder Pal filed application that the plaint did not make out any case and that it should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Society then filed suit for declaration that they were lawful owner and in possession of the assets of the deceased Ms. Raj Mohini. They laid claim on the will dated 2-4-85. Joginder Pal filed application that the plaint did not make out any case and that it should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. By an order dated 18-1-97, the trial Court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. Society filed appeal which was allowed vide judgment dated 5-4-97 and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for trial on merits. Joginder Pal preferred second appeal No. 14 of 1997 which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 5-1-99. Joginder Pal went to the Hon ble Supreme Court through SLP (C) No. 17208 of 1999. Before the Hon ble Supreme Court Shri Sohal learned counsel for Joginder Pal submitted that full trial had taken place in the application filed by the society for succession certificate and those proceedings were not disposed of in a summary manner. Issues had been raised, parties had been allowed to lead evidence a decision was given on merits. As such the society could not claim any rights under the will dated 2-4-85. He relied upon Explanation VIII Sectioin 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. He submitted that the principles of res judicata would also apply. In support of the submission that the institution of the suit for declaration was barred when will dated 12-6-87 had been found to be valid and genuine by the Court in proceedings for the grant of succession certificate, he relied upon Smt. Sawarni V/s. Smt. Inder Kaur reported as (1996) 7 JT (SC) 580 ." 8. Hon ble Supreme Court rejected the submission and held that finding recorded in proceedings for the grant of succession certificate cannot bar subsequent suit. In a subsequent suit, the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any findings made in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate. Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows :- "Sections 373, 383(e) and 387 of the Indian Succession Act make it clear that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. Sec. 387 puts the matter beyond any doubt. Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows :- "Sections 373, 383(e) and 387 of the Indian Succession Act make it clear that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. Sec. 387 puts the matter beyond any doubt. It categorically provides that no decision under Part X upon any question or right between the parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or any other proceeding between the same parties. Thus S. 387 permits the filing of a suit or other proceedings even though a succession certificate might have been granted." 9. In Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma V/s. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai (2000) 5 JT (SC) 336 the Hon ble Supreme Court held, after considering the provisions of Ss. 370 to 390 of the Indian Succession Act as well as S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that any adjudication under Part X does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding. 10. Hon ble Supreme Court thus held in Joginder Pal V/s. Indian Red Cross Society (supra) that even in summary proceedings, issues can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the Court may in its discretion permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. In a subsequent suit, the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Joginder Pal, on the other hand, submitted that the Court cannot ignore the grant of succession certificate unless the same is annulled by the court in accordance with law. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Smt. Sawarni V/s. Smt. Inder Kaur (1997) 1 RCR (Civil) 41 where it was observed in para 7 of the report that"the succession certificate and the rights flowing therefrom cannot be ignored. Admittedly, no attempt has been made by defendants 1 to 4 to annul the succession certificate on the grounds available under the Succession Act. The Additional District Judge committed serious error of law in not considering the said will and the succession certificate in question which unequivocally clinches the matter and thereby the ultimate judgment of the additional District Judge is vitiated. The Additional District Judge committed serious error of law in not considering the said will and the succession certificate in question which unequivocally clinches the matter and thereby the ultimate judgment of the additional District Judge is vitiated. The High Court also was in error in not examining these questions and dismissing the Second Appeal in limine." In Smt. Sawarni V/s. Smt. Inder Kaur (supra), Smt. Sawarni had filed suit for declaration of title and possession. It was alleged in the plaint that one Gurbax Singh was the admitted owner of the land in question and he died leaving behind his widow Gurdip Kaur and daughters Sawarni, the plaintiff and Roori alias Kirpal Kaur. Said Gurbax Singh purchased the land in question from one Dhara Singh under sale deed dated Septe 5/09/1958. Widow Gurdip Kaur died on 14/04/1968 and on her death plaintiff and Roori succeeded to the disputed land in question. Gurdip Kaur also had executed a will on 29/02/1968 in favour of her two daughters the plaintiff and Roori. Plaintiff and Roori had obtained a succession certificate claiming to be the legal heirs of Gurdip Kaur from the civil Court on 4/04/1975. Said Roori was not heard of and did not claim any interest in the disputed property, but defendant Nos. 8 and 9 are the sons of said Roori and defendant No. 7 is her husband and, therefore, in the property of Gurbax Singh, plaintiff as well as defendant Nos. 7 to 9 are the successors in interest and are entitled to share half and half. It was also alleged that defendants 5 and 6 without having any interest in the property forcibly occupied a portion of the disputed property taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff from the said village where the land in suit is situated and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief as already stated above. It was also averred in the plaint that defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from defendant No. 5 Inder Kaur and said defendant No. 5 claiming herself to be one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh had executed the sale deed in question. Plaintiff contended that defendant No. 5 is the daughter of Harnam Singh brother of Gurbax Singh and not daughter of Gurbax Singh. Plaintiff contended that defendant No. 5 is the daughter of Harnam Singh brother of Gurbax Singh and not daughter of Gurbax Singh. The execution of will by Gurdip Kaur widow of Gurbax Singh was also denied and it was averred that said will is a forged and fictitious document. Defendants also denied the factum of obtaining succession certificate by the plaintiff and the said Roori. It was thus contended that since Inder Kaur had half share in the disputed property being daughter of Gurbax Singh, she executed the sale deed in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and defendant No. 6 on receipt of valuable consideration. Thus possession of defendants 5 and 6 or defendants 1 to 4 is that of a true owner and they cannot be held to be trespasser. Defendants 1 to 4 filed separate written statement and took the same stand as that of defendants 5 and 6. It was also averred in the written statement that the land in question had been mutated in favour of plaintiff and Inder Kaur which establishes the rightful ownership of defendant No. 5. Defendants 7 to 9 filed a written statement admitting the plaintiffs claim. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. The trial Court recorded the evidence and gave findings that a succession certificate had been issued in favour of the plaintiff and Roori to succeed to the estate of Gurdip Kaur. Smt. Gurdip Kaur had executed a will dated 29-2-68 in favour of her two daughters, the plaintiff and Roori alias Kirpal Kaur. Roori alias Kirpal Kaur was the other daughter of Gurbax Singh apart from Sawarni and Inder Kaur, defendant No. 5 was not his daughter. Suit was decreed. In appeal, the decree was set aside by the Additional District Judge, High Court maintained the setting aside of the decree. Additional District Judge found that the plaintiff could not have filed suit so far as half share of Roori is concerned. He also came to the conclusion that will or succession certificate is of no consequence in establishing whether Roori is one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh. Additional District Judge found that the plaintiff could not have filed suit so far as half share of Roori is concerned. He also came to the conclusion that will or succession certificate is of no consequence in establishing whether Roori is one of the daughters of Gurbax Singh. Hon ble Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court as well as that of the Additional District Judge on the finding that the succession certificate and the rights flowing therefrom could not be ignored in civil suit. 12. In Mohan Lal V/s. Kartar Singh (1995) 3 Rec Rev. Rep 676 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that an order of an issue which had arisen directly or substantially between the parties or their privies and decided finally by a competent Court or tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that such Court was not a competent Court to try the subsequent suit. 13. In Balbir Kaur V/s. Gram Panchayat Village Jalabehra 1986 Rev L R 112, a Division Bench of this Court held that the principles enshrined in S. 11, CPC are based on justice, equity and good conscience. Res judicata is a doctrine of conclusiveness of determination as to the points already agitated between the same parties in earlier proceedings. It is dictated by wisdom which is for all times. It does not draw sustenance from any statute nor should any statutory provision be easily construed to render it ineffective. 14. In Mahant Brahm Dass alias Mahant Janki Dass V/s. Mahant Sarju Dass alias Mahant Janki Dass (1996) 1 Rec Rev Rep 481 (Punj and Har), it was held that the grant of succession certificate is a judgment in rem. It operates against the entire world. Will-cum-nomination deed dated 18-2-28 was earlier produced in a case between the parties and proved according to law. Since a controversy again had been raised by the defendant, the plaintiff procured a certified copy from the official record and placed it on record with a view to prove this document, plaintiff examined Om Parkash son of Baru Ram who proved the signatures of his father upon the will. The plaintiff deposed in his statement that neither scribe or any of the attesting witnesses of the will survives. The plaintiff deposed in his statement that neither scribe or any of the attesting witnesses of the will survives. This precise point has either escaped the notice of the Court or has simply been glossed over. The lower Court has also gone wrong in ignoring the fact that document is more than 3o years old and so there was no need to prove its attestation etc. The matter can be examined from another angle also i.e. in the succession certificate proceedings, the present plaintiff contested the claim of the defendant for the grant of succession certificate and with a view to prove his case adduced in evidence the will cum nomination deed as well as Muzharnama. The Court relying upon these documents found merit in the contention of the plaintiff and so declined the defendants prayer for grant of succession certificate. There is no need to prove its attestation and it is admissible. 15. In M/s. Deepak Grit Udyog V/s. State of Haryana (1996) 1 Rec Rev Rep 549 , it was held that S. 11, CPC is intended not only to prevent a new decision but also to prevent a new investigation so that the same person cannot be harassed again and again in various proceedings upon the same question of law. In State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977 SC 1680, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel per res judicata is a rule of evidence. As has been stated in Marginson V/s. Blackburn Borough Council (1939) 2 KB 426 at page 437, it may be said to be the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action. This doctrine is based on two theories; (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It, therefore, serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matter, which has once been adjudicated upon. It, therefore, serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matter, which has once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of action and bring the administration of justice into dispute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action and that is why it is necessary for the Courts to recognize that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot, therefore, survive the judgment or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata. 16. In Hope Plantations Ltd. V/s. Taluk Land Board, Peermade (1999) 1 Rec Civ Rep 235, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that doctrine of res judicata is based on public policy that the decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction should be final unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities. No one should be made to face the same kind of litigation over again. 17. In Balbir Singh Wasu V/s. Lakhbir Singh Wasu 1993 Pun LJ 720, a Division Bench of this Court held that proceedings for the grant of probate in High Court are in the nature of original proceedings concurrent with that of proceedings of District Judge. Proceedings in contentious case i.e. when a will is disputed, would be in the nature of a suit. Proceedings have to be tried as nearly as may be according to provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Probate Court does not decide any question of title. Probate Court is only concerned with the question as to whether document putforth before it was duly executed and attested according to law and whether at the time of such execution, testator had sound disposing mind. 18. Probate Court does not decide any question of title. Probate Court is only concerned with the question as to whether document putforth before it was duly executed and attested according to law and whether at the time of such execution, testator had sound disposing mind. 18. On the strength of these judgments, the learned counsel for the respondent Joginder Pal submitted that when the validity of will dated 12-6-87 set up by Joginder Pal and that of will dated 2-4-85 has been adjudicated upon by the Court in proceedings for the grant of succession certificate and decided after a hot contest in favour of the will dated 12-6-87 set up by Joginder Pal, the same matter should not be allowed to be agitated over again by the District Red cross Society, Gurdaspur, instead the suit for mandatory injunction filed by Joginder Pal should be decided in terms of what had been decided by the Court granting succession certificate. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant (Red Cross Society) reiterated, on the strength of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Joginder Pal V/s. Indian Red Cross Society (supra) that the decision granting succession certificate to Joginder Pal relying upon will dated 12-6-87 cannot operate as res judicata as the proceedings in which succession certificate was granted are summary proceedings. They remain summary proceedings even if issues are raised and evidence is led. In a subsequent suit, the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or influenced by any finding made in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate. In view of what has been decided in Joginder Pal V/s. Indian Red Cross Society (supra), the decision granting succession certificate in favour of Joginder Pal alias Joginder Nath relying upon will dated 12-6-87 cannot operate as res judicata so far as this suit for mandatory injunction filed by Joginder Pal is concerned. 20. For the reasons given above, this RSA is allowed. Judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded for decision afresh. Learned trial Court is directed particularly to frame issues covering the will dated 12-6-87 set up by Joginder Pal alias Joginder Pal and the will dated 2-4-85 set up by District Red Cross Society, Gurdaspur, Learned trial Court will record evidence particularly on these issues and decide these issues. Learned trial Court is directed particularly to frame issues covering the will dated 12-6-87 set up by Joginder Pal alias Joginder Pal and the will dated 2-4-85 set up by District Red Cross Society, Gurdaspur, Learned trial Court will record evidence particularly on these issues and decide these issues. Decision on these issues will be decisive of this suit. Appeal allowed.