Present: Jayewardene A.J.

ANDRIS v. SIRIYA et al.

185-C. R. Gampola, 6,12 .

    Jurisdiction-Value subject-matter stated in plaint not questioned- -Plea of res judicata-Compentency of Court-Evidence Act, ss. 44 and 50.

Where, in a case in which the question of jurisdiction depended on the value of the property, no objection was raised as to the valuation of the subject-matter given in the plaint, the competency of the Court in respect of- its monetary jurisdiction cannot be challenged in a subsequent action between the parties.

The principle that parties cannot by consent give jurisdiction, where none exists, applies only where the law confers no jurisdiction.

It does not prevent parties from waiving inquiry by the Court-as to facts necessary for the determination of the question of jurisdiction, when that question depends on facts to be proved.

ACTION by the plaintiff for declaration of title to the half share of a land called Kandehena against the defendants, appellants. It would appear that the present plaintiff sued the defendants Siriya in case No. 4,731 of the same Court for a declaration of title to the same land. There the plaintiff valued the interest he claimed at Rs. 200. The defendants denied the local but not the monetary jurisdiction of the Court. Eventually, a decree was entered in favour of the plaintiff to what, in effect, amounted to a one-fourth share as against the first defendant. The present action was brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendants, and it was contended that the decision in the previous action was res judicata. The first defendant attempted to get over the binding effect of the decree in the previous action against him by alleging that the share claimed by the plaintiff was worth more than Rs. 300, and that the Court of Requests had no jurisdiction to try and determine that action. The Commissioner of Requests held that the previous decree was res judicata as against the first defendant.

Navaratnam, for first and second defendants, appellants. Garvin, for plaintiff, respondent.

September 19, 1924. JAYEWARDENE A.J.-

I have had the advantage of a full argument in this case, and I have decided on the course which I ought to follow with respect to its disposal. The action raises questions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court and to res judicata. It would appear that the present plaintiff sued the defendants, appellants, in case No. 4,731 of the Court of Requests of Gampola to be declared entitled to a half share of a land called Kandehena. The appellants denied the title of the plaintiff, and asked that his claim be dismissed. There the plaintiff valued the interest he claimed at Rs. 200. This value was given not in the numbered paragraphs of the plaint, but in the first paragraph of the prayer. The defendants denied the jurisdiction of the Court as stated in paragraph 1 of the plaint. That statement referred to the local jurisdiction of the Court and not to its monetary jurisdiction. On May 27, 1921, according to the journal entry of that date, the Court was informed that the second defendant's interest in the land, namely, an undivided three-fourth share, had been sold by the Fiscal. In view of this fact, the case was ordered to proceed in respect of the remaining undivided one-fourth share. According to my reading of this journal entry, after May 27, 1921, the second defendant ceased to be a party to the action, and the case proceeded only with regard to the one-fourth interest which the first defendant claimed. On October 31 the case came up for trial. The first defendant was present, the second defendant was absent ; and Mr. Halangoda, who was a partner of the

proctors who had filed a proxy from the first and second defendants, was present for the defendants, according to the entry in the record. On the day of trial after some discussion, the details of which are entered in the journal, the C