Iftikhar Ahmed vs Syed Meharban Ali and Others Case Explained

Iftikhar Ahmed and Others vs Syed Meharban Ali and Others (1974)
Writ Petition (Civil) 1646 of 1967
Date of judgment: 26.02.1974

In this law note, you will learn about the facts, issues, arguments, and judgment of Iftikhar Ahmed and Others vs Syed Meharban Ali and Others.

Bare Act PDFs

Before you begin, make sure you know what res judicata is. This case law is about the concept of res judicata.


This case concerns a property dispute between the appellant (Iftikhar Ahmed) and the respondent (Syed Meharban Ali) to determine which one is the “Bhumidar” of the properties involved.

This matter was passed on to a civil judge by the Consolidation Officer, and then the judge further passed it on to an arbitrator. While deciding upon the case, this arbitrator agreed with the judgment of Allahabad’s High Court.

He pointed out that because of the High Court’s ruling, there is res judicata, and so on, the respondent will not be an entitled Bhumidar. Later, the matter was passed on to the civil judge as the respondent was dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decision.

The judge decided that the arbitrator’s award was incorrect as the judgment he referred to didn’t serve as res judicata. Therefore, the judge passed the case to a new arbitrator, quashing the previous award.

Bare Act PDFs

The new arbitrator concluded that the decision passed by the High Court of Allahabad didn’t serve as res judicata and further determined that the appellant and the respondent were both co-Bhumidars. When referred further, this award was accepted by the civil judge and the High Court.

Facts of the Case

A dispute arose over property ownership between Ishtiaq Ahmed on one side and Meharban Ali and Kaniz Fatima on the other. Buniyad Ali, on the other hand, was the property’s original owner. Ishtiaq Ahmed stated that after Buniyad Ali died, his son, Aftab Ali, received all of his father’s holdings. Ishtiaq Ahmed also stated that after the deaths of Aftab Ali in 1910 and his widow in 1925, he (Ishtiaq Ahmed) became the sole owner of the properties. Because the matter involved property title, the consolidation officer sent it to a civil judge in Meerut, who subsequently referred it to an arbitrator.

In his arbitral award, the arbitrator determined that Meharban Ali and Kaniz Fatima had no title to the assets and no rights to them. As a result, they were not joint owners of the properties with Ishtiaq Ahmad. The arbitrator relied on an Allahabad High Court decision in making his decision.

According to the arbitrator, the conflict between the parties over ownership of the assets served as res judicata. However, both parties were dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decision and thus referred it to a learned civil judge in Meerut. To that end, he ruled that the arbitrator’s conclusion was incorrect and that the judgment on which the arbitrator relied did not serve as res judicata between the parties.

The civil judge in Meerut rejected the arbitral award due to a legal error and remanded the case back to arbitration. The arbitrator eventually concluded that the High Court of Allahabad’s verdict did not serve as res judicata with regard to the title to the properties. And based on oral and documentary evidence supplied by the parties, the arbitrator determined that the other two parties are co-Bhumidars to the properties but have three exceptions, namely, 9 Bighas 3 Biswas 3 Biswasis.

Ishtiaq Ahmed, dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decision, filed an objection with Civil Judge II of Meerut. The civil judge considered Ishtiaq Ahmed’s objections and found that the arbitrator’s finding had no legal flaws, affirming the arbitrator’s award.

Issues Raised

There were two significant issues raised in this case:

  1. Whether the High Court of Allahabad made the correct decision by setting aside the district judge of Meerut’s decree and the arbitrator’s award.
  2. Whether there was any legal error in the award and whether it acted as res judicata in relation to the properties’ title.


The following were the arguments advanced by both appellants and respondents:

Arguments on Behalf of Appellants

The appellants argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the district judge’s decision. However, the appellants also argued that the district judge’s decision to set aside the arbitral award was correct because the arbitral award was affected by a legal error. After all, it relied on the High Court’s decision that, in terms of the title to the properties, it did not serve as res judicata.

The appellants further claimed that Meharban Ali and Kaniz Fatima did not have title to the properties since their mothers had abandoned their stakes in the property, and their rights and title to the properties had passed to Ishtiaq Ahmed’s mother, Matlub-Un-Nissa.

However, the trial court dismissed the case, ruling that Kaniz Fatima and Meharban Ali’s mother had surrendered their stakes in the properties and that Matlub-Un-Nissa, the mortgagor, was the only owner. As a result, both the mortgage and the decree were legal.

Arguments on Behalf of Respondents

The respondent contended that the civil court issued an order under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to issue a fresh arbitral award because the arbitrator made a legal error by relying on the High Court’s verdict in determining the title to the properties.

Ishtiaq Ahmed could not have challenged the decision since an order remitting an award to an arbitrator under section 16 of the Arbitration Act is not appealable under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator reached no finding about the respondent’s title to the property at any point in time via adverse possession.


The civil judge ruled that the decision of the High Court did not function as res judicata. The judge further held that the arbitrator’s ruling, based on the High Court’s determination of res judicata, was manifestly incorrect and impacted by a legal error. As a result, the judge ordered that new arbitration procedures be held.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court analyzed the entire case and speculated whether the respondents would retake it because they had previously failed to demonstrate their property title. The court also defined the res judicata concept between the defendants and established specific requirements to be satisfied before such principles were used:

  1. Co-defendants must have a conflict of interest.
  2. To grant a remedy to the plaintiff, it was necessary to address the conflict of interest.
  3. The issue was resolved by the court.

The court then held that the earlier ruling should have functioned as res judicata because all prerequisites were satisfied. As a result, the court decided to dismiss the previous arbitrator’s award and reject the appellants’ allegations that it acted as res judicata. Accordingly, the court granted the appeal.


One of the essential obligations of courts is to ensure that their acts do not hurt or injure anyone. There is a principle that states that “a judicial act must hurt no one.” As a result, judges must use extreme caution in this regard. However, because our legal system follows a very long process of granting justice and our society has frivolous litigation, the interpretation of res judicata should be flexible, and its reach should not be limited.

Read Next:

Gayatri Singh
WritingLaw » Case Laws » Iftikhar Ahmed vs Syed Meharban Ali and Others – Case Explained Law Study Material
If you are a regular reader, please consider buying the Law PDFs and MCQ Tests. You will love them. You may also support us with any amount you like. Thank You.