Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 383
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SINGHARAVELU
Gurumani Vinayagar Temple and Kannanur Mariamman Temple - Appellant
Versus
Somu & Another - Respondents
Second Appeal Nos. 249 and 288 of 1994
Decided On : 01 March 2005
The principle of res judicata applies between two stages in the same litigation, and a party cannot re-agitate an issue decided at an earlier stage in subsequent proceedings.
Headnote:
res judicata - Property Dispute - O.S.2357 of 1981 - Exs.A-1 to A-5 - C.V.RAJENDRAN AND ANOTHER ..vs..N.M.MUHAMMED KUNHI (2002 (5) CTC 612) - K.M.Rathinam Nadar and another ..vs.. Arulmigu Hanumantharayar Bhajanai Madam @ Hanumar Kovil rep.by its hereditary trustee Tmt.L.Padmavathiammal (1996 TLNJ 131 at page 138)
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute over lands situate at Kodikalkuppam Village within Cuddalore Municipality limits, with a history of earlier proceedings and endowment created under a Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue in the present suit was the plaintiff's title to the suit land versus the right of possession of the defendants, and ruled in favor of the defendants based on their right of possession and management established through the Will and previous judgments.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of res judicata, estoppel, and reversal of judgment by the lower Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants had a right of possession and management over the suit properties based on the Will and previous judgments, and the plaintiff failed to establish a better title, leading to the dismissal of the Second Appeals.
Final Decision: The Second Appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court were confirmed.
COMMON JUDGMENT:-
These Second Appeals are directed against the decrees of the Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, dated 28.08.1992 in a common judgment in A.S.144 of 1991 preferred by 1st defendant and A.S.146 of 1991 preferred by 2nd defendant in respect of the decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore on 09.04.1991 in O.S.890 of 1987.
2. While admitting the Second Appeals, the following substantial questions of law were framed:
(1) Is not the judgment of the lower Appellate Court hit by the principles of res judicata based on Exs.A-1 to A-5?
(2) Whether the first defendant is estopped from re-opening the point regarding the title to the suit properties once again?
(3) Whether the lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court on unsustainable grounds?
3. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit properties consisting of five items of lands situate at Kodikalkuppam Village within Cuddalore Municipality limits.
4. There were earlier proceedings regarding the suit properties. Regarding the said properties, there was an endowment created under a Will. That Will was executed by one Rathnam Pillai on 25.07.1903. That endowment created certain obligations to be performed in favour of the idol of the plaintiff temple and the right of management was vested with the heirs of the said Rathnam Pillai.
5. Somasundaram Pillai, the son of Rathinam Pillai had filed a suit in O.S.92 of 1961 claiming hereditary trustee of the appellant temple. In that suit, this Will dated 25.07.1903 by Rathnam Pillai was marked with consent of the Commissioner of HR & CE, who was also a party in that suit, as Ex.A-2 and the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the appeal preferred by Somasundaram Pillai in Appeal No.297 of 1963, the copy of the judgment of which was marked as Ex.B-1, made the following observation;
"We may also add that the fact the plaintiff's claim to the hereditary trusteeship of the temples has been negatived, does not affect his right to be the trustee of the endowment. Under the powers conferred by the document Exhibit A-2, the plaintiff will be entitled to be in possession and management of the properties and utilise the income of the properties as specified in Exhibit A-2".
Anyway Somasundaram Pillai could not succeed in his claim for hereditary trusteeship.
6. Somasundaram Pillai again filed a suit in O.S.2357 of 1981 for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction in respect of the same properties. In that suit also, the Will was a subject matter and an issue was also framed and it was held that the Will has not been proved; the appeal proceedings were all dismissed. The connected documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-5.
7. Counsel for the appellant / plaintiff contended that the findings in O.S.2357 of 1981 will operate as res judicata against the 1st defendant, who is none else than the son of Somasundaram Pillai. True it is that properties are the same in both this suit as well as in O.S.2357 of 1981. Although the parties are not exactly the same inasmuch as Commissioner was the party to the earlier proceedings representing the interest of the plaintiff temple and since Selvaraj is none but the son of Somasundaram Pillai, who was actually agitating against this plaintiff temple, we can hold that the parties are also same.
8. Counsel also relied upon the decision reported in C.V.RAJENDRAN AND ANOTHER ..vs..N.M.MUHAMMED KUNHI (2002 (5) CTC 612), wherein it was mentioned that
"principle of res judicata applies as between two stages in same litigation so that if issue had been decided at earlier stage against party, it cannot be allowed to be re-agitated by him at subsequent stage in same suit or proceedings".
By relying upon the same, it has been submitted that the present 1st respondent Selvaraj, who is none but the son of Somasundaram Pillai and who claims under Somasundaram Pillai, cannot
