This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of law of general importance. The question is whether a finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer functioning under the Madras Cultivating Tenants’ Potection Act, Madras Act (XXV of 1955) that the cultivating tenant is not in arrears of rent in an application filed by the landlord for evicting him can bar a civil suit filed by the landlord for recovery of such arrears, of rent.

The petitioner in the revision petition leased out his properties to the deceased father of the first respondent and the second respondent under a lease deed, dated 5th September, 1954, for the fasli year 1364. The rent fixed under the lease deed was 158 kalams of paddy. The petitioner claimed that the lessees were in arrears of rent to the extent of 18 Kalams for that fasli year. For the subsequent fasli, 1365 a fresh lease deed was executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner on 25th January, 1956, agreeing to measure 176 kalams of paddy as rent. According to the petitioner the respondents were in arrears in respect of the fasli year to the extent of 20 Kalams of paddy. The petitioner filed S.C.S. No. 726 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Tiruvarur against the respondents claiming to recover the sum of Rs. 296-12-0 being the value of the arrears of rent of 38 Kalams of paddy and interest thereon at 5½ per cent, per annum. The respondents pleaded in that suit that they were not in arrears at all.

During the pendency of the suit the petitioner filed P. No. 2 of 1957 before the Revenue Court, Tiruvarur, seeking to evict the respondents from their holdings under the provisions of Madras Act XXV of 1955 on the ground that they were in arrears of rent to the extent of 38 kalams of paddy for the fasli years 1364 and 1365. The Revenue Divisional Officer enquired into that petition and held that the respondents were not in arrears of rent and accordingly dismissed the eviction petition by his order dated 14th March, 1957. Thereupon the respondents filed an additional written statement in the pending suit, S.C.S. No. 726 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif is Court, Tiruvarur, urging the plea that the finding of the Revenue Court holding that there was no arrear operated as res judicata and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute of arrears of rent between the parties. The learned District Munsif tried this issue as a preliminary issue and upheld the respondent’s contention. The suit was therefore dismissed with costs. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner landlord against the said judgment and decree. In this judgment we are referring to the Civil Suit as a subsequent suit though it was instituted prior to petition in the Revenue Court as the Civil Suit was tried only after the termination of the Revenue enquiry.

Somasundaram, J., heard the Civil Revision Petition in the first instance. On behalf of the respondents the decision of this Court in Narasimha Chettiar v. Muthuswami Gounder1, was cited before the learned Judge. In that decision Ramaswami, J., held that a finding of the Revenue Court in the decisions rendered by it in the course of proceedings under Madras Act XXV of 1955 would operate as res judicata. Somasundaram, J., was unable to agree with this view and he was of opinion that the Civil Revision Petition may be heard by a Division Bench. The Civil Revision Petition has therefore been posted before us.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code embodies the doctrine of res judicata. The section however is not exhaustive and the doctrine of res judicata has often been invoked and applied to cases not strictly within the compass of that section. The maxim ‘No man should be vexed twice over for the same cause ‘(Memo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa) is recognised to be a principle of law which has to be given effect to and followed without being unduly restricted by the terms of the statute as