1. The plaintiff failed to prove historical rent in kind; however, the tenants were found to possess occupancy rights, though the 1869 settlement was not permanent. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
1931 Supreme(SC) 90
Privy Council At Madras
George Lowndes, Lancelot Sanderson , Justice Viscount Dunedin, JJ.
Krishna Chendra; Gaja Pati; Narayana Deo -Appellant
Versus
Challa Ramanna and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 33 of 1931
Decided On : 07-12-1931
Advocates Appeared:
K.V.L. Narasimham, E.B. Raikes , V.V. Jogiah, J.M. Parikh
K.V.L. Narasimham, E.B. Raikes , V.V. Jogiah, J.M. Parikh
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding on the appellate board. Additionally, issues not explicitly pleaded in the plaint but litigated by both parties without protest are considered res judicata between them.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Issues not pleaded in plaint - Where parties without protest choose to join issue upon points not properly raised by the plaint, the findings on such points are binding as res judicata between the parties.
(B) Evidence - Concurrent findings of fact - Findings of fact reached by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court are generally not disturbed by the appellate board.
Facts of the case:
A trustee for deities filed a suit against occupying tenants of a village seeking a declaration that a settlement made by a government body in 1869, which established money rent based on fixed block rates, was beyond the powers of a trustee and not binding. The plaintiff sought to claim rent in kind instead of money rent. It was admitted that money rent had been paid since 1869, and evidence suggested this practice existed since the beginning of the previous century.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was unable to show that rent in olden days was paid in kind. Regarding the tenants' status, the High Court held that the respondents possessed occupancy rights, although the settlement of 1869 was not a permanent settlement.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim rent in kind instead of money rent. Secondary issues, which emerged during trial, concerned whether the tenants had permanent rights of occupancy and the nature of the 1869 settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the question of whether rent was historically paid in kind is a pure question of fact, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts on this point were binding. Furthermore, although the inquiry into occupancy rights was not properly raised in the plaint, because both parties litigated these points without protest, the findings on these issues operated as res judicata.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Concurrent findings of fact regarding rent history are binding; issues joined by parties without protest, even if not in the plaint, may operate as res judicata. (Para 6 )
3. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 7 )
4. Can issues not specifically raised in the plaint be treated as res judicata?
Yes, if both parties choose to join issue upon those points without protest during the proceedings, the resulting findings can be treated as res judicata between them. (Para 6 )
5. Does the existence of occupancy rights necessarily imply a permanent settlement?
No, a court may find that tenants possess occupancy rights even if a specific settlement made by a trustee or authority was not a permanent settlement. (Para 6 )
Viscount Dunedin.-
This case is in a curiously unsatisfactory position. The plaintiff in it is Zamindar of the Parlakimedi in his capacity as trustee for two gods. The defendants are the occupying tenants of the village of Kosamala, 183 in number. The only relief asked in the plaint was as follows :
“(a) For a declaration that the settlement of the Mokhasa Amaniya village of Kossmals made in or about 1869 by the Court of Wards acting on behalf of the plaintiffs late grandfather,the then trustee of the gods Sri Rimaswami and Sri Jagannadhaswami of Parlakimedi, and continued since about 1869, by which the said village has been annually leased out at a money rent determined according to fixed block rates, is beyond the powers of a trustee and is not binding on the plaintiff, who is the present trustee of the said gods ;
(b) for a declaration that the plaintiff as the present trustee of the said gods is entitled to claim rent in kind from the defendants in respect of their holdings in the said Amaniya village at Kosamala ;
(c) For an injunction directing defendants to pay rent in kind to plaintiff from Fasli 1826 in respect of their holdings in the said village of Kosamala."
Now it is perfectly clear that the only real question raised by the above recited prayer is the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the rent in kind instead of money rent. But when the case got before the Temporary Subordinate Judge he framed issues which strayed far beyond that simple question and these issues were adopted by the District Judge before whom the case came to depend. Leaving out issues which were either irrelevant or redundant, the critical issues are as follows :
“(5) Are the defendants raiyats of Kosaniala with no permanent rights of occupancy ?
(6) Was the malvaram (the Government or landlords share of the crop) and kudivaram of the lands in Kosamalt vested in the gods Sri Ramaswami and Sri Jagannadhaswami ?
(7) Did the defendants ever pay varam rent, rent in kind according to sharing system, to the landlord ?
(8) What was the system of tenure prevalent prior to 1869 ?
(11) Is the plaintiff entitled to claim rent in kind from the defendants for all or any of the reasons stated in plaint, paras. 8 to 12 ?"
'Taking 7, 8 and 11 first, as the issues which the plaint justified, they raise pure questions of fact. Payment in money had even as the plaint admitted, being going on since 1869-that is, nearly 50 years-and it was proved to have been a rule since at least about the beginning of last century. The plaintiff's right to have a rent in kind depends on his being able to show that the rent in olden days used to be in kind. This he was quite unable to show, as found by the District Judge, and this finding was affirmed by the High Court when the appellant appealed against a dismissal of the suit. These are concurrent findings in fact, so that this point, the only point really raised by the plaint, could not be argued before this Board. But, as has already been shown, the District Judge fixed issues which strayed into other matters" and evidence was led upon these points as raised by issues 5 and 6. The District Judge, notwithstanding that he dismissed the suit, held that the respondents had not proved occupancy rights. This finding was reversed by the High Court, who held that the respondents had occupancy rights, but that the settlement by the Court of Wards of 1869 was not a permanent settlement. They therefore dismissed the appeal and the suit was dismissed.
As their Lordships have pointed out, all this inquiry about occupancy rights and as to whether the settlement of 1869 was a permanent one, was not properly raised by the plaint but as both parties have without protest chosen to join issue upon these points, their Lordships see no reason why these matters in dispute should not be res judicata between them. On consideration of the evidence on these questions which are questions of fact, their Lordships see no reason to differ from the resu
