Banda V. Banda Et Al.,

 

1941     Present : Howard C.J. and Soertsz J.

 

BANDA v. BANDA et al.

13-D.C.Kandy,21.

 

Res judicata-Two sets of defendants-Conflict of interest between defendants -Final decision.

 

Where there were two sets of defendants in a case between whom there was a conflict of interest and it was necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claimed and where the question between the defendants was finally decided,_

 

Held, that the judgment operated as res judicata between the defend­ants inter se.

 

Senaratne v. Perera (26 N. L. R. 225) referred to.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.

 

Cyril E. S. Perera (with him Gilbert Parera), for the defendants, appellants.

 

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him S. R. Wijayatilake), for the plaintiff, respondent.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

June 18, 1941. HOWARD C.J.-

 

The only question that arises in this case is whether the learned District Judge was right in holding that the decree in D. C. Kandy, 36,732, is res judicata as to the title whether by prescription or otherwise of the plaintiff and defendants. D. C. Kandy, 36,732, was instituted in 1928 by one A. M. Banda against the plaintiff-respondent for middle lot A in plan D 1. The defendants-appellants were added as defendants in the 1928 case and in their answer claimed lots C and D by prescription. There was also a fifth added defendant who claimed lot B. Although claiming title to lots C and D by prescription the appellants disclaimed title to lot A which formed the subject-matter of the action and prayed that they might be released therefrom. One of the issues for trial was the question as to what rights the parties had acquired by prescription to the land called
 

 

Panwatta alias Kotikabaddewatta which it was admitted was constituted by lots A, B, C, and D. In his judgment the District Judge stated that the plaintiff and the added defendants including the defendants-appellants in this case are on one side, while the defendant is on the other. Also that the contest was whether the middle block, that is to say, the land called Panwatta consisting of lots A, B, C, and D belonged to the plaintiff and the added defendants or whether it belonged to the defendant. The District Judge dismissed the action with costs. The first to fourth added defend­ants, appealed against this decision and in their petition of appeal submitted (a) that they were wrongly made parties to the action by the District Judge of Kandy as there was no quarrel between them and the defendant and (b) that they had acquired a title by possession. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the District Judge affirmed.

 

In the present case the plaintiff cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document