Arulampalam Et Al. V. Kandavanam

1939     Present: de Kretser J.

ARULAMPALAM at al v KANDAVANAM.

136-C. R. Jaffna, 4,656. 

Res judicata-Two actions pending-Decision of later action binding on the earlier action-Agreement to abide by decision of one action.

A plea of res judicata would operate in bar of an action which was instituted before the action the decision of which is pleaded in bar, provided the other conditions are satisfied.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Jaffna.

S. J. V. Chelvanayagam, for third defendant, appellant.

N. Nadarajah (with him N. Kumarasingham), for plaintiff, respondent. 

Cur. adv. vult. 

November 30, 1939. DE KRETSER J.-

The third defendant-appellant in this case had obtained a money decree against the first and second defendants, and in execution thereof had caused the Fiscal to seize two lands on May 20, 1936. The present plaintiff preferred claims thereto based upon a transfer in his favour dated May 7, 1936, from the first and second defendants. His claims were both dismissed, and as they were made in different Courts they were dismissed on different dates. He then brought these two actions, viz., the present case on November 3, 1936, and the other case (No. 11,319) in the District Court of Jaffna on March 15, 1937. In each case the appellant took up the same position that the transfer had been executed in fraud of creditors.

On March 21, 1938, Counsel stated to the Court that the decision in the District Court case would settle this case, and accordingly this case was laid by and later relisted for trial. The decision in the District Court case was then pleaded as res judicata and that plea was upheld.

It is admitted that it is exactly the same point now in dispute as was raised in the District Court case, and that the issues are the same in both cases and the evidence would be the same. But it is contended that because this case was instituted before the decision of the District Court case therefore the plea of res judicata was not available.

Neither counsel had drawn my attention to what was in effect agreed upon between the parties in the lower Court on March 21, 1938, namely, that the decision in the District Court case should govern this case. It seems to me that the learned Commissioner would have been justified in making his order on this ground alone.

Now, the doctrine of res judicata is based primarily on the policy that it is in the interests of the State to have an end of litigation : interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. It also takes into cognizance the maxim- Nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa. As stated in Halsbury (Vol. 13, p. 332, para. 464) " . . . . The true view seems to be that the legal rights of the parties are such as they have been determined to be by the judgment of a competent Court. But the conclusiveness of the deter­mination rests upon the same principles in each case. The doctrine of res judicata is not a technical doctrine applicable only to records : it is a fundamental doctrine of all Courts that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document