Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Gangai Vinayagar Temple & others - Appellants
Versus
Meenakashi Ammal & others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4227 of 2003
Decided On : 03-09-2009
A. Civil Procedure Code, Section 11 - Res-judicata - The property belonged to the appellants and was leased to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for a period of 15 years with effect from 8.11.1967 -In the meantime the property was sold by the appellants to defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and a notice was given to the lessees to pay the outstanding arrears of rent to the appellants- Lessees filed a suit challenging the transfer and sought an injunction against interference in their possession by transferees- The appellants also filed two Suits, claiming the arrears of rent - Suit, OS 5 of lessees was dismissed and decree became final- Suit OS 7 of the appellants was dismissed but suit OS 6 decreed, against which lessees filed appeal- Appellants filed no appeal against the suit dismissed- Single Judge of the High Court held that the finding given by trial judge on title in favour of the appellant was wholly irrelevant and unnecessary and thus set aside findings in OS 5 and OS 7, holding that res judicata will not apply, though appeal was filed only against OS 6- Held for dismissal of OS 5, it was very crucial to a find that defendant Nos. 7 to 9 in the suit were landlords having validly purchased the said property from the trustees/appellants who could transfer the property in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 only if they have title to the property and only if defendant Nos. 7 to 9 acquired the valid title , they could initiate steps for dispossession of the lessees i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 6 ( paras 50, 51 and 52 )
B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 Explanation III- Order 14 Rule 1 (1) (a) (b) - Framing of issues- Expression 'directly and substantially in issue'- In the plaint of the lessees plea of title was raised, therefore issue regarding title must have been framed- When an issue has been framed in a case and a finding is given on the same issue, the said finding, in view of Explanation III to Section 11 of the said Code, is one which has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties- In the plaint, the respondents 1 to 6 directly challenged the right of the trustees to alienate their property which was a public trust and could not be alienated without sanction under Section 26 of the Act and alienation in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 was void as they have no title- Therefore, unless a decision on this aspect and the title of the trustees is rendered, the further decision, namely, the dismissal of the suit could not be reached- The question of title of the appellant and the nature of the trust property is directly and substantially in issue ( paras 39 to 47 and 56)
C Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11- Applicability of Res Judicata- Doctrine of Res-judicata is founded on three principles:1. nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa : no man should be vexed twice for the same cause;2. interest republicae ut sit finis litium : it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation; and 3. res judicata pro veritate occipitur : a judicial decision must be accepted as correct, if I may add, in the absence of a challenge- The question whether finding reached by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a previous suit between the same parties should operate as Res-judicata or not does not depend on the reasons on which the said finding is based-Therefore held, neither the Single Bench of the High Court nor the Division Bench took a correct view in holding that the finding reached in OS 5 of 1978 or OS 7 of 1978 could be modified in the absence of any appeal from the aforesaid finding- Order of trial court restored- Appeal allowed.( paras 71 to 80)
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.
I have read the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother, Justice Markandey Katju in this appeal and which was sent to me on 14.8.2009. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the draft judgment, rendered by His Lordship, dismissing the appeal.
2. I am of the view that the appeal should be allowed and the reasons for the said view are stated herein below.
3. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the temple by the trust committee and also by one of the trustees impugning the judgment and order of Madras High Court dated 6.1.2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants, inter-alia, holding that there is no merit in the appeal.
4. The question involved in the appeal would appear from the discussion of the relevant facts in this case.
5. The property in question belonged to the appellants and was leased out to respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for a period of 15 years with effect from 8.11.1967 and which expired in 1983.
6. On or before 1.7.1976, the property in question was sold by the appellants to defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and to that effect a notice was given to the lessees on 14.10.1976 calling upon them to pay the outstanding arrears of rent upto 1st July, 1976 to the appellants.
7. Thereupon, the lessees, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a Suit which was ultimately numbered as OS 5 of 1978, inter-alia, alleging that the appellants have illegally transferred the property to the defendant Nos. 7 to 9 who were seeking to interfere with the possession of the respondents and as such an injunction was sought against such interference.
8. The appellants also filed two Suits, namely, OS 6 and OS 7 of 1978 claiming the arrears of rent till the date of transfer of property to defendant Nos. 7 to 9 i.e 1.7.1976 from the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
9. All the Suits were heard together.
10. Of these three Suits, OS 5 of 1978 filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 was dismissed and no appeal was filed therefrom. OS 7 of 1978 was also dismissed, no appeal was filed from it either.
11. OS 6 of 1978 was partially allowed and only against the judgment and decree in OS 6 of 1978, an appeal was filed by the respondents 1 to 6.
12. These facts are not disputed.
13. The questions which arise for consideration in this case is whether the Court while entertaining an appeal from judgment and decree in Suit 'A' can reverse a finding rendered in Suit 'B', especially, when no appeal was filed from the findings rendered in Suit 'B'?
14. As a necessary corollary to the aforesaid issue is whether the findings reached in Suit 'B', being binding between the parties inter-se, can be modified in an appeal from Suit 'A' in view of the bar of Res-Judicata.
15. Arising out of these two questions is a third question of general importance about the importance of the principle of Res-judicata which is based on high principle of public policy in the administration of justice. Whether such principles can be ignored by courts, inter-alia, on the ground that the finding reached by a Court of competent jurisdiction in another Suit was unnecessary and whether this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 should step in to prevent an erosion of the doctrine of Res-judicata.
16. Before answering these questions, I would like to examine the necessary pleadings, the issues framed and the findings in the Suits in question.
17. OS 5 of 1978
In this suit the plaint has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 challenging the sale of the property by the appellants in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 and while challenging the same the following averments have been made :
18. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is further averred as under :
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
