Subramaniam V. Kumaraswamy Et Al.,

1955 Present : Gunasekara, J., and Sansoni, J.

K. SUBRAMANIAM, Petitioner, and K. KUMARASWAMY
et al., Respondents

S. C. 403-Application for Conditional leave to appeal to the
Privy Council in D. C. Point Pedro 4,329

Res adjudicata-Point of law-Erroneous decision thereon--Right of parties to raise same point of law in another suit.

Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance (Cap. 85)-Rule 1 (a) and (b) of Schedule-" Directly or indirectly "-" General or public importance ".

An erroneous decision on a pure question of law will operate as res adjudicata in regard only to the subject-matter of the suit in which it is given. It does not prevent the Court from subsequently deciding the same question correctly in another suit between the same parties when the subject-matter of the suit is different. Therefore, if the subject-matter of a suit is a land of the value of less than Rs. 5,000, the aggrieved party seeking to appeal to the Privy Council on a point of law is not entitled to claim that the appeal involves " indirectly " a question respecting property of the value of over Rs. 5,000 within the meaning of Rule 1 (a) of the Schedule to the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance merely because a dispute between the same parties regarding other lands of over Rs. 5,000 in value will involve the same point of law.

Held further, that the discretion vested in the Supreme Court under Rule 1 (b) of the Schedule to the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance will not be exercised in favour of a party when his only ground for invoking the Rule is that he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court.

APPLICATION for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council.

S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, Q.C., with H. W. Tambiah and S. Sharvananda, for the 1st defendant petitioner.

C. Renganathan, with T. Arulanandhan, for the 8th, 10th and 11th. defendants respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 2, 1955. SANSONI, J.-

This is an application by the 1st defendant for conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment of this Court which is reported in 56 N. L. B. 44. The application is based on two grounds: (1) that the question of law decided in that judgment affects the 1st

defendant's rights in other properties valued at over Rs. l00.000, and therefore " the appeal involves directly or indirectly a question respecting property of the value of Rs. 5000 or upwards " within the meaning of Rule 1 (a) of the Schedule to the Appeals (Privy Council) Ordinance, Cap. 85 ; (2) that " the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision " under Rule 1 (b) of that Schedule. The 8th, 10th and 11th defendants object to the application being granted on either ground.

The question of law involved, and I should add that it is a pure question of law and nothing else, is the correct interpretation of certain provisions of the Jaffna Matrimonial Rights and Inheritance Ordinance (Cap. 48) and Ordinance No. 58 of 1947, by which it was amended. The 1st defendant by deed acquired several allotments of land from time to time during the subsistence of his marriage with one Rasammah. She has died leaving her husband (the 1st defendant) and four children (8th to 11th defendants). The judgment against which it is sought to appeal decided the rights of the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th defendants in respect of one land so acquired.

Mr. Chelvanayakam submits that as this judgment is res adjudicate as regards the rights of these parties in respect of all the other lands which were similarly acquired by the 1st defendant, it is necessary to have the decision considered by the Privy Council. If this submission were correct it would be a strong reason for allowing this application. But Mr. Renganathan challenges its correctness and he relies on the judgment in Katiritamby v. Parupath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document