Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9832
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.SOMARAJAN, J
BABY GIRIJA
– Appellant
Versus
NARAYANAN – Respondent
OP(C) 2458 2022
JACOB SEBASTIAN, K.V.WINSTON, ANU JACOB, K.P.BALAGOPAL, V.JAYADEVA NARAYANAN
A second suit based on the same contract for sale is unsustainable when a prior decree has decisively addressed the cause of action.
Headnote:
Recovery - Contract for Sale - Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act - The court ruled that a second suit based on the same contract for sale was unsustainable due to lack of cause of action and reiterated the finality of the previous decree.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of an advance amount from a contract for sale through a suit. After partial decrees in favor of the plaintiff, the first defendant conveyed the property to the second defendant. The plaintiff then filed a second suit challenging this transaction as a sham.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the second suit could not be maintained as the cause of action had already been addressed in the prior decree, and ruled to reject the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for lack of sufficient cause.
Issues: Whether the second suit challenging the conveyance documents was maintainable given the existence of a prior decree related to the same cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the previously concluded decree on the advance amount negated the need for a second suit, emphasizing the finality and binding nature of the first suit's findings.
Final Decision: The OP(C) is allowed, and the suit is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for insufficient cause.
JUDGMENT
For recovery of the advance amount given under a contract for sale, a suit was filed for specific performance of the contract for sale. It was decreed in part granting return of the advance amount, the alternative relief. It was taken up in the first appellate court, wherein it was confirmed. The second appeal was also dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. As such, the decree for return of the advance amount became conclusive and final.
2. It is thereafter, the first defendant in that suit conveyed the property, which is the subject of the contract for sale, to the second defendant and the second defendant in turn conveyed the property to the first defendant. Thereon, the very same plaintiff came up with a second suit to declare the abovesaid documentation as a sham document. In fact, the cause of action available under the contract for sale was already culminated in a decree for recovery of the advance amount. Hence, the second suit based on the very same contract for sale cannot be sustained due to want of sufficient cause of action. Further, it is not a suit under Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act , based on the decree for money. Necessarily, the court below ought to have rejected the same under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC, instead of dismissing the application challenging the maintainability. As such, the order of the court below, Ext.P5 would stand set aside and the suit will stand rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC for want of sufficient cause of action.
Hence, the OP(C) will stand allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2015 IN RSA NO.813/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 13.11.2017 IN O.S NO.438/2017 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE FIRST DEFENDANT IN O.S NO.438/2017 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR DATED
21.02.2019.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.2670/2022 IN O.S NO.438/2017 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR DATED 03.12.2022.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2022 IN I.A NO.2670/2022 IN O.S NO.438/2017 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF CHITTUR.
