Velasipillai V. Kanapathipillai

 

1941     Present: de Kretser and Wijeyewardene JJ.

 

VELASIPILLAI v. KANAPATHIPILLAI.

 

258-D. C. Jaffna, 152.

 

Res judicata-Priciple to be applied-Matter directly and substantially in issue in previous case-Provisions of Civil Procedure Code not exhaustive.

 

The decision of a Court upon a matter, which has been directly and substantially in issue between the parties will operate as res judicata in a subsequent action.

 

The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not exhaustive of the law of res judicata in Ceylon.

 

Appuhamy v. Punchihamy (17 N. L. R. 271) and Rowena Umma v. Pathumma Umma (.41 N. L. R. 522) distinguished.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Jaffna.

 

N. Nadarajdh for 4th and 5th defendants, appellants.

 

L. A. Rajapakse, for plaintiffs, respondents.

 

Cur. adv. vult.

 

July 24, 1941. DE KRESTER J.-

 

One Kander Subramaniam was married to one Kanthipillai and had two children named Ponnachipillai and Thinagaranather. The latter was the father of one Rajasekaram, who brought an action in the Court of Requests, Point Pedro, No. 25,417, against his aunt Ponnachipillai and her husband to have a certain land partitioned. In a pedigree which he invoked appear certain names, and it is said that this document should be read as indicating that the land belonged to Kanthipillai by right of inheritance. Certain parties intervened to claim rights. Their position was that the land belonged to Subramaniam and not to his wife Kanthipillai, and they alleged that Subramaniam had contracted another marriage with one Alvattai by whom he had two children, Sanmugam and Eledchimipillai, two of the added defendants. The original parties in that case alleged that these two persons were not children of the Subramaniam who married Kanthipillai. At the trial issues were stated as follows: -

 

(1) Are the 2nd and 3rd added parties the legitimate children of Kander Subramaniam along with the 2nd defendant and the father of the plaintiff (i.e., Ponnachipillai and Thinagaranather) ?

 

(2) Are the 2nd and 3rd added parties children of another Kander Subramaniam by one Alvattai ?

 

The trial Judge answered the first issue in the negative and the second in the affirmative. He also held on prescriptive possession and ordered a partition. He did not decide whether the land belonged to Kanthipillai or to Subramaniam. The added defendants appealed, and this Court held that the evidence in support of the alleged second marriage was most unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal with costs.

 

The plaintiff in the present case traces his title from Ponnachipillai, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document