The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the principle of res judicata to proceedings under the Land Reforms Act, and the restriction on filing successive applications on the same cause of action without any change of circumstances.

1. The person in possession of the land in which there is a homestead or but in the occupation of a kudikidappukaran is referred to as the landholder in the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Under S.75(1) of the Act, the kudikidappukaran is given a restricted fixity or immunity from eviction subject to certain conditions. He is given certain restricted rights and easements. Subject to certain conditions he is given the right under S.80A ' to purchase the kudikidappu and S.80B provides for the procedure. When once he purchases the kudikidappu, his restricted rights mature into full ownership. Thereafter, he cannot be evicted by anybody. Till then one of the restrictions imposed on his rights, of which alone we are concerned in this case, is the right given to the land-holder under S.75(2). He can require the kudikidappukaran to shift to a new site belonging to him if he bona fide requires the land

(a) for constructing a building for bis own residence or for the residence of any member of his family including major sons and daughters; or

(b) for purposes in connection with a town planning scheme approved by the competent authority; or

(c) for any industrial purpose and then complying with the following conditions:

(i) that he pays the price of the homestead, if any, erected by the kudikidappukaran,

(ii) that a new site fit for erecting a homestead and within one kilometre from the existing kudikidappu is offered,

(iii) that the new site Ss having the specified area

(iv) and that he transfers ownership and possession of the new site to the kudikidappukaran and pays reasonable cost of shifting to the new site.

On satisfaction of these requirements and compliance of the conditions including demand, the kudikidappukaran is bound to shift. If be does not do so S.75(4) read with S.77 gives the land-holder the right to apply before the Land Tribunal for shifting. In this revision filed by the land-holders the main question for consideration is whether the land-holders can go on filing any number of such applications or whether the principles governing the rule of res judicata embodied in S.11 CPC will restrict such unfettered rights.

2. In 1971, the revision petitioners filed such an application on the ground of bona fide requirement for the construction of a building for their residence. That requirement was accepted, but the application happened to be dismissed in 1972 since they failed to pay the shifting charges. Again in 1976, they filed a second application on the same grounds. This time, the bona fide requirement itself was found against on the merits by the Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority and the application and appeal were dismissed. While the revision against that order was pending before this Court they filed the present application, O.A. 97 of 1978, on the same requirement with the only difference that the new site offered is different. Thereafter, the revision was dismissed as not pressed. Both the Land Tribunal and the Appellate Authority rejected the prayer on the ground of non-maintainability applying the principle of res judicata. Hence they came up in revision.

3. A Full Bench of this Court in Koran v. Kamala Shetty (1977 KLT. 358) said:

"The principle of finality or conclusiveness of a prior decision or the general principle of res judicata is applicable even to quasi judicial bodies like the Land Tribunals functioning under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. On principle it appears to us that this should be so, as these Tribunals are invested with the task of deciding important rights and have to do so on principles of natural justice and fair play. In these circumstances the rules of res judicata are applicable to them".

But that decision did not consider the question whether the rule of 'might and ought' embodied in Explanation IV to S.11 of the Civil Procedure Code can be regarded as part of the general rule of res judicata and whether it can have application to proceedings before these Tribunals, on the ground that it di