Important point
An issue already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, cannot be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 11—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 116—Res judicata, waiver and estoppel—Whether an issue already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, can be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit—(No). (Paras 2 and 22)
(ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 11—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 116—Res judicata, waiver, estoppel —Applicability of principles—Issue of interpolation in the clause relating to renewal of lease deed in the agreement between the parties—Dealership of petroleum outlet was given to appellant, a lessee of a piece of land belonging to respondent 1—Lease deed for a period of 15 years was executed by respondent 1 in favour of appellant 1 with respect to that property—A written agreement for being appended as Clarification Agreement to the main registered lease was executed mainly incorporating two clauses firstly, the renewal of lease deed and second clause regarding private passage—As per the IBP guidelines renewal option was must—After expiry of the lease, appellant, as per the terms of the renewal agreement gave a notice to respondent 1 for execution of a fresh lease deed renewing it for a further period of 15 years—Respondent 1 instead of renewing the lease filed Title suit—Respondent suppressed existence of written agreement in the original plaint—Appellant pleaded about the renewal clause—Appellants filed suit for specific performance—Respondents alleged interpolation in renewal clause of agreement but pleaded that this issue would never be raised at later stage—Whether respondent can raise question of interpolation in plaintiff’s suit for specific performance—(No).
Held : We are told that in the Title Suit No. 382 of 1993 filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the appellant, after examining five witnesses, the respondent has closed the evidence and now the defendant-appellant herein are examining their witnesses. In Title Suit No. 15 of 1996, the plaintiff-appellant herein have closed the evidence after examining 31 witnesses. The defendant-respondent herein has commenced her witnesses. Three witnesses have already been examined and only one witness remains to be examined. We, therefore, restrict respondent No. 1, Smt. Usha Sinha, from putting any question challenging the genuineness of the agreement dated 2.9.1978 in the light of our findings made above. It is stated that some witnesses have already been examined on both the sides. If any question is put and any answer is extracted with regard to the genuineness/interpolation or forgery of agreement dated 02.09.1978, the said evidence cannot be looked into by the trial Court and should be eschewed from consideration and the judgment be passed on the merits of the rival claims on other related issues. We answer all the questions in favour of the appellant and hold that respondent No. 1 is precluded from raising the genuineness/interpolation or forgery of agreement. (Paras 25 and 26)

Judgment

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. The main issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an issue, already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, can be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit.

3. The issue involved in the earlier proceedings was whether respondent No. 1 could raise the issue that there was interpolation in the clause relating to renewal of lease deed in the agreement between the parties dated 02.09.1978. The High Court held that the said respondent could not raise that issue as she had expressly given it up. This was affirmed by this Court when the respondent challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 16513 of 2001 dated 13.09.2002. Now respondent No. 1 seeks to re-agitate the very same issue in another suit between the same parties. According to the appellants, the said issue cannot now be raised as the said respondent is barred by the principles of res judicata, waiver and estoppel. However, the sub-Judge as also the High Court of Patna have now allowed the respondent to raise the said issue.

4. To appreciate the above question, the following facts are necessary to be stated:

Appellant No. 1, Amarendra Komalam, is a lessee of a piece of land situated at Mauza Dujra, Lodhipur Market, now in the city of Patna. Appellant No. 2, M/s S.K. Puri Service Station, is a petroleum dealership firm. Respondent No. 1, Smt. Usha Sinha, is the land owner and respondent No. 2 is M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking company, which has given the dealership of the petroleum outlet to appellant No. 1.

5. Pursuant to the negotiations between the parties for taking the land in question on lease for opening of the petroleum outlet, an application was filed by the appellant to M/s I.B.P. Co. Ltd. for approval of the site of the land in question for motor spirit outlet. A letter was issued by M/s. I.B.P. Co. Ltd. to appellant No. 1 specifying in detail the requirement of a renewal clause in the Lease Deed Agreement. Vide Memo No. 4788, the office of the District Magistrate, Patna issued no objection certificate for installation of HSD filling station on the aforesaid land in question in favour of appellant No. 1. Lease deed for a period of 15 years was executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of appellant No. 1 with respect to aforesaid property on 01.06.1978 and the same was registered on 12.08.1978 and given effect to between the parties from 01.06.1978. A Clarification Agreement was appended to the main registered lease deed on 12.08.1978. A written agreement for being appended as Clarification Agreement to the main registered lease deed dated 12.08.1978 was executed on 02.09.1978 mainly incorporating two clauses firstly, the renewal of lease deed and the second clause was that private passage to respondent No. 1’s bounded land behind the land in question. The stamp paper for the written agreement dated 02.09.1978 was purchased by respondent No. 1 who got it typed and signed after fully understanding the same, as admitted by her in her deposition. Thus respondent No. 1 executed fresh agreement dated 02.09.1978 inserting the following words in the original deed in compliance to the I.B.P. company’s demand:

“Whereas as per the IBP guidelines renewal option is must so the following words at the end of paragraph 5 of the deed No. 5115 dated 12.8.1978 is added.”

“Provided if it is required to be renewed by Lessee then possession shall not be given.”

6. After expiry of the lease, the appellant, as per the terms of the renewal agreement dated 02.09.1978, gave a notice through registered post to respondent No. 1 on 28.05.1993 for execution of a fresh lease deed renewing it for a further period of 15 years. Respondent No. 1 instead of renewing the lease filed Title Suit No. 382 of 1993 seeking the following reliefs :

(a) That on adjudication

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 588

Important pointAn issue already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, cannot be allowed to be raised again be­tween the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit.

Important point
An issue already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, cannot be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit.