Exnelligoda Kumarihamy V. Medankara Thero

1943 Present: Howard C.J. and Keuneman J.

EKNELLIGODA KUMARIHAMY, Appellant, and MEDANKARA
THERO, Respondent.

335-D. C. Ratnapura, 6,828

Interpleader action-Plaintiff retained till conclusion of case-Decision binding on all parties-Res judicata-Claim for annuity-Prescription.

Where, in an interpleader action, all parties have been retained until the final disposal of the action under section 631 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code, the finding is binding not only on the defendants but also on the plaintiff and operates as res judicata in a subsequent action between a defendant and the plaintiff.

All the admitted facts which formed the basis of the interpleade action and the decision on the question as to the person entitled to receive the money are binding upon the parties.

A claim to recover an annuity due under a will is prescribed in three years.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Ratnapura.

The facts appear from the argument.

H. V. Perera, K.C. (with him A. R. H. Canekeratne, K.C., U. A. Jayasundere and P. Malalgoda), for the defendant, appellant.-

The plaintiff and defendant in the present case were the third defendant and plaintiff respectively in the interpleader action No. 5,09s1. In the latter action it was held by Court that the present plaintiff was entitled to the sum brought into Court by the present defendant as stakeholder. The learned District Judge has misdirected himself on the law in holding that the decree in the interpleader action operates as res judicata against defendant in respect of issues that arise in the present case. In the interpleader action the defendant was not a party to any dispute but was merely a stakeholder and looker-on. She was only incidentally or collaterally interested. She was formally a party on the record but not a party in the adjudication. It cannot even be said that there was any admission by the stakeholder such as will operate as res judicata, actual or constructive, within the meaning of section 207 of the Civil Procedure Code. Nothing is res judicata except between persons who were at issue on the occasion when the thing was adjudged-Mariammai v. Pethru-pillai 1[(1918) 21 N. L. R. 200]; Hukm Chand on Law of Res Judicata pp. 56,170; section 628 of the Civil Procedure Code. A test as to whether a person is a party to a case is to see whether he can appeal to the Supreme Court-Malhi Kunwar v. Imam-ud-din 2[ I. L. R. 27 All. 59 at 61.]; Roweena Umma v. Rahumma Umma [(1940) 41 N. L. R. 522.]. A stakeholder is not an aggrieved party and cannot appeal.

No plea of estoppel by representation can be raised on behalf of the plaintiff. Such a plea can arise only in respect of a particular thing regarding, which a representation was made. The sum of money in this case is not the sum which was the subject-matter of the interpleader action.

The will in question in this case makes an absolute request to the defendant and does not impose a binding obligation on her to pay any money to the plaintiff. Even if it' creates any such obligation the beneficiary is not the plaintiff but the priest who was officiating at the time of the execution of the will, namely, Sumanatissa.

Plaintiff cannot, at any rate, claim any sums which fell due three years before the date of action. The will does not create any charitable trust. Section 10 of the Prescription Ordinance (Cap. 55) is applicable.

N. Nadarajah, K.C. (with him E. B. Wikremanayake and H. Waniga-tunge) for the plaintiff, respondent.-

The plaintiff in an interpleader action is a party and has a vital interest in the case. He seeks to be discharged from any obligation to the wrong party. The rule of res judicata extends to all matters in issue in a case, whether they are formally put in issue or not; the points agreed to and admitted are also caught up. The decree in case No. 5,098 is binding on the defendant in the present

Click Here to Read the rest of this document