Senaratna V. Perera Et Al.,

Present: Bertram C.J. and Jayewardene A.J.

SENARATNA v. PERERA ,et al.

14-D. C. Kurunegala, 8,448.

Res judicata-Action between co-owners-Added defendants-Adjudication between defendants inter se-Adverse claims.

Where a co-owner sues another to obtain a declaration of title to the undivided share he claims, and the other co-owners are joined to enable him to prove his title in their presence, the judgment obtained by him would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendants, but not between the defendants inter se.

The principle that the decision is not res judicata between co-defendants is subject to two exceptions:

(a) When a plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he claims without an adjudication between the defendants, and such an adjudication is made, the adjudication so made is res judicata not only between the plaintiff and the defendants, but also between the defendants.

(b) When adverse claims are set up by the defendants to an action, the Court may adjudicate upon the claims of such defendants among themselves, and such adjudication will be res judicata between the adversary defendants as well as between the plaintiff and the defendants.

Provided that in either case the real rights and obligations of the defendants inter se have been defined in the judgment.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kurunegala. The plaintiff sued the first and second defendants to be declared entitled to 1/3 of 5/9 of the land depicted in the plan, which he said was a divided portion of the land called Nugagahamullahenyaya. The first and second defendants called it Siyambalagahawatta. The third, fourth, and fifth defendants were joined as co-owners of the plaintiff. All parties claimed title from the same source-the fourth defendant. The third and fifth defendants filed answers supporting the plaintiff's contention and claiming certain shares. The main issue which was common to the plaintiff and the third and fifth defendants was as follows: -Is the land described in the plan identical with the land called and known as Nugagahamullahenyaya ? The learned District Judge held that the first and second defendants were attempting to take advantage of a mistake in the deed under which the plaintiffs claimed, and that the land claimed by the plaintiffs as Nugagahamullahenyaya was identical with the land sold to the first and second defendants by the fourth defendant under the name of Siyambalagahawatta. He dismissed the plaintiff's claim, with costs, but directed the third 8 

and fifth defendants to bear their own costs. The first and second defendant's appeal against the judgment was dismissed with costs. In their cross-appeal the third and fifth defendants urged that as-they, with the plaintiff, had succeeded on the main issue, they be declared entitled to the shares claimed by them. This was opposed on behalf of the first and second defendants on the ground that no such adjudication can be made in the present case as these parties are co-defendants, and that the decision cannot operate as res judicata between them.

E. J. Samarawickreme, for first and second defendants, appellants.

Drieberg, K.C. (with him Croos Da Brera), for plaintiff, respondents.

Soertsz, for third and fifth defendants, respondents.

September 18, 1924. Jayewardene A.J.-

In this case there is an appeal and a cross-appeal. The appeal is between the first and second defendants and the plaintiff and third and fifth defendants, and the cross appeal is between the-third and fifth defendants and the first and second defendants.

The plaintiff sued the first and second defendants to be declared entitled to 1/3 of 5/9 of the land depicted in the plan filed in the case, which he said was a divided portion of the land called Nugagahamullahenyaya.

The first and second defendants called it Siyambalagahawatta. The third, fourth, and fifth defendants were joined as co-owners of the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document