JUDGMENT :- This is a landlord's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing his suit for the recovery of rent from the defendant respondent. It raises an important question of law concerning the application of the principle of res judicata to the findings of a Court of Small Causes. The appellant Jageshwar Prasad filed this suit against Shyam Behari Lal for the recovery of Rs. 1440 as arrears of rent on the basis of an agreement of tenancy. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that there was any contract of tenancy between him and the plaintiff. He also raised a number of other pleas which it is not necessary to consider in this appeal. The plaintiff contended that the finding of the Small Cause Court, in his previous suit for the recovery of rent from the defendant for an earlier period, that there was an agreement of tenancy between the parties, operated as res judicata in the present suit and the defendant could not be permitted to deny the tenancy. This plea was overruled by the Additional Munsif, Kanpur who decided this question on merits, and held that the plaintiff had not proved the agreement of tenancy between him and the defendant. He dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed this decision and the plaintiff has come to this Court in second appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the view of the courts below that the finding of the Small Cause Court in the previous suit that there was a contract of tenancy between the parties does not operate as res judicata in the present suit is erroneous. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent by Mr. K. C. Saxena that S. 11 C. P. C. will apply only under certain conditions specified in the Section, and as these are not present in this case the earlier decision cannot operate as res judicata.

3. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the finding of the Small Cause Court, in a suit by the landlord for recovery of rent from the tenant, that there is an agreement of tenancy between the parties, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit by the landlord for the recovery of rent for a different period but under the same agreement, filed in a Civil Court. The answer to this question depends upon whether the decision of the Small Cause Court, for purposes of res judicata is governed by the provisions of S. 11 of the Code of Civil procedure or by the general principles of res judicata. The relevant words of S. 11 (1) are as follows :

"(11) Res Judicata : No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."

4. The vital words for the purpose of the present controversy are "in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit." They mean that in order that a decision may prevent a re-hearing of the same matter by another Court, the Court whose decision is to operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit must be competent to hear not only the suit in which the decision was given but also the one in which it is to operate as res judicata. The reason for imposing the second condition lies in the nature of our judicial system which consists of a hierarchy of subordinate Courts, and it was evidently felt that the decision of a Court of inferior status cannot bar the jurisdiction of a Court of superior status, and only the decision of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction alone will be potent enough to prevent another Court from hearing the same disputes between the same parties. The words "competent to try the subsequent suit" incorporate this principle.

5. But this condition of competency to try the sub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document