1913 Present: Lascelles C.J., Wood Renton and Pereira JJ.

SAMICHI v. PIERIS.

195-D. C. Kandy, 21,328.

Res judicata-Seizure of money due to debtor under a contract-Claim by assignee of contract upheld-Subsequent seizure by same creditor of another sum of money due under same contract-Claim by the same claimant-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 207, 406-Appeal-Seizure of money under s. 232, Civil Procedure Code-Inquiry into claim preferred-No appeal lies against an order in the claim inquiry.

A creditor seized a sum of money which had accrued due to his debtor under a contract. A third party claimed the money as the assignee of all the debtor's rights under that contract, and the creditor consented to the claim being upheld. Thereafter the same creditor seized a further sum of money which had accrued to the same debtor under the contract; the same claimant claimed the money under the same assignment.

Held (per LASCELLES C.J. and WOOD RENTON J.), that the right of the claimant to the money was res adjudicata between the parties, and that it was not open to the creditor to challenge in the subsequent proceedings the claimant's title.

Section 207 and similar sections of the Civil Procedure Code do not embody the whole law as to res judicata in Ceylon.

Even if we are restricted to section 207 of the Code, the expression " cause of action" contained in the explanation to that section cannot be restricted to the particular subject-matter claimed. The cause of action must be held to include the denial of the right to the relief which a litigant claims, and, inferentially, a denial of the title by which he claims it.

Per PEREIRA J., following the decision in Palaniappa v. GOMIS,1[4Bal.21.] that our law as to res Judicata is to be found in section 207 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that although the provisions of that section may be supplemented by the. English law, that law cannot be brought in to qualify those provisions, or to supersede any portion of the section, or to restrict or expand its scope or meaning. Therefore, whatever is laid down, as held or ordered, within the four corners of the decree in a case, cannot be debated again in a subsequent action between the same parties, but (according to the " explanation " attached to the section) any incidental or collateral matters that were actually put in issue, or might have been put in issue, in a case would be res Judicata only where another action is attempted on the same cause of action.

An inquiry into a claim to money seized in the hands of a public officer under section 232 of the Civil Procedure Code is an inquiry under sections 242 to 245 of the Code, and the order on such inquiry is therefore not appealable; the remedy of the party against whom it is made being an action under section 247.

THE facts are set out as follows in the judgment of Wood Renton J.:-

The facts material to this appeal are these. Thomas de Silva, the appellant, Arbaham Pieris, the defendant, and Adrian Fonseka entered into a contract with the Principal Civil Medical Officer on June 27, 1911, to supply to the Government hospital at Dambulla certain articles of food from July 1, 1911, to June 30, 1912. By deed No. 1,424 of September 12, 1911, Pieris and Fonseka assigned to the appellant their rights under the contract. This assignment was effected in breach of a condition of the contract that it should not be assigned without the previous written consent of the Principal Civil Medical Officer. The plaintiff-respondent, Samitchi Appu, obtained judgment against Pieris in this case, and-I am taking the facts as they are now placed before us in the learned District Judge's reply, dated February 27, to a letter sent to him by direction of my brother Pereira and myself at the close of the first argument- seized, under section 232 of the Civil Procedure Code, what was then the unascertained sum due to Pieris under the contract above r