Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, J.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
MULAMCHAND - Respondents
Civil Revn. 722 Of 1971
Decided On : 08/30/1972
(2) Res judicata - question of law - when operates as res judicata.
A decision on a question of law is res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the cause of action is the same. The words "matter in issue" as employed in section 11, C.P,C., mean the right litigated between, the parties. It has reference not only to the facts on which the right is claimed or denied, but also, to the applicability or non-applicability of a rule of law to the given set of circumstances. [Para 16
Where a decision on a question of law in relation to a given set of facts attains finality, it operates as res judicata in a later suit or proceeding between the same parties. This will be so even if it was erroneous. AIR 1936 PC 46 & AIR 1953 SC 65 relied on. [Paras 17 & 26
There are three exceptions to this rule. These are (i) where by a subsequent legislation, the law, as applied in the earlier decision, is altered. However, a different interpretation of the law as given in a subsequent binding precedent is not the same thing as altering the law. (ii) Where the question of law is one purely relating to the jurisdiction of the Court (iii) Where the decision of the Court sanctions something which is illegal. 'Illegality' in this context refers to an act prohibited by law. [Para 26
(3) Constitution of India - Art. 141 - value of the precedents of the Supreme Court - scope of the rule - legislative functions not conferred on the Supreme Court.
Article 141 of the Constitution enacts that the law declared by the Supreme Court "shall be binding on all Courts" within the territory of India. This means that when the Supreme Court expresses its view on any particular point of law, such expression of view shall be considered as overriding a contrary view expressed on the point in an earlier decision of any Court. Even obiter dicta of the Supreme Court if deliberately made upon a question with the intention of settling the law, are binding on all Courts. However, Article 141 does not confer on the Supreme Court any legislative function. The Supreme Court only interprets the law as it stands, but does not amend the law. Their Lordship's decision declares the existing law but did not purport to enact any fresh law. [Para 17
(4) Res judicata - decision in writ petitions - principle applies.
(5) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - decision in writ petition - principle of res judicata applies.
A decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit, if the cause of action is the same. AIR 1965 SC 1153 relied on. [Para 20
(6) Res judicata - principles - apply even where section 11, C.P.C., not applicable - object of the principle.
There is now high authority for the proposition that even where section 11 C.P.C., does not apply, the principle of res judicata is applied for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The principal of res judicafa is based on public policy and giving finality to a judicial decision. Once a res judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Where a question whether of fact or of law has been decided between the parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision has attained finality (whether because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed, or because no appeal lay), neither party is allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again. AIR 1959 SC 275, AIR 1960 SC 941 & 1970 (1) SCC 673 relied on. [Para 21
(7) Res judicata - suit dismissed in entirety - findings against defendant are not res judicata.
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 - S. 11 - suit dismissed in entirety - any finding against the defendant is not res judicata.
It is undoubted law that where a suit is dismissed in its entirety, no finding either on question of law or on question of fact, recorded against the defendant binds him. AIR 1922 PC 241 & AIR 1956 Nag. 273 relied on. [Para 22
(9) Res judicata and binding precedent - conflict between - res judicata prevails.
As between a decision which operates as res judicata and a decision which is binding as a precedent but not res judicata, the former must prevail. [Para 25
( 1 ) IN this revision, the defendant-State has challenged the decision of the trial court on the question of res judicata.
( 2 ) ON October 6, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, sold by public auction to the plaintiff the right to propagate and collect lac in some of the forests of balaghat district. The plaintiff purchased the said right in different Patwari circles. The total amount payable by the plaintiff was Rs. 69,500/ -. The plaintiff merely paid Rs. 500/- on October 6, 1951, and another sum of Rs. 5000/- on October 6, 1951 and another sum of Rs. 5000/-on November 29, 1951. For the balance of rs. 59,000/- the Tahsildar Balaghat, started recovery proceedings. In the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thus, the balance outstanding against the plaintiff was Rs. 58,000/ -.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff challenged those recovery proceedings by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by a learned Judge sitting singly (Misc. Petn. No. 197 of 1956 ). The petitioner (now plaintiff) preferred a letters Patent Appeal (No. 117 of 1956) which was decided by a Division Bench on may 6, 1959. That decision is reported in 1960 MPLJ 195 = (AIR 1960 Madh Pra 152 ). Two points were raised before the Division Bench-
(1) The recovery proceeding under Section 225 (c) of the Central provinces Land Revenue Act was without authority of law and (2) The indentures were not executed by proper authority as required by article 299 of the Constitution, so that the contracts were not legally enforceable. On the first question, the Division Bench held that Section 82 of the indian Forests Act was applicable to the case and consequently the revenue authorities were entitled to realise the amount due as arrears of land revenue under Section 225 (c) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act.
( 4 ) ON the second question, the Division Bench held that in the execution of the indentures, there was no breach of Article 299 (1) of the Constitution. Secondly, as the contracts had been ratified by the State Government and the appellant had been allowed to exploit the forests according to the terms of the sale, there was no bar to the right of the State Government or its servants to realise the dues from him.
( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, during the pendency of the recovery proceedings (supra), and before the decision of the said Letters Patent Appeal, the plaintiff instituted a civil Suit (No. 24-B of 1954) for the recovery of damages (Mulamchand v. State of m. P. ). In that suit, the plaintiff's case was that he had purchased from the proprietors of different malguzari jungles, the right to pluck, collect and remove the forest produce, like lac, tendu leaves, etc. for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953. This right he had acquired before the proprietary rights in these forests came to vest in the State on the coming into force of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary rights Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951 ). His claim was that the Deputy Commissioner, balaghat, under Section 7 of the Abolition Act took charge of the entire malguzari jungles on April 1, 1951, and prohibited him from enjoying the right he had already acquired. However, when the Deputy Commissioner auctioned the forest produce of the village covered under the purchases of the plaintiff he purchased the right to collect lac from those forests and paid the State Rs. 10,000/ -. He claimed a refund of the amount so paid, on the basis that there was no valid contract between him and the State of M. P. as the provisions of Article 299 of the constitution were not complied with and the contract was void. The trial Court, relying on Firm Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel v. The State of M. P. , 1953 SCR 476 = (AIR 1953 SC 108) held that the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the contract against the State of M. P. and accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 57,281/- and dismissed the rest of his claim. Both the parties came up i
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
