1996 (1) TMI 460 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment of the Madras High Court dated September 2, 1976, in O.S.A. No. 20 of 1976 operates as res judicata.
2. Whether the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated November 9, 1970, in A.S. No. 31 of 1967 operates as res judicata.
3. Whether there was a merger of TCC in the Church of South India in 1947 and if TCC ceased to exist thereafter.

Summary:

Issue 1: Res Judicata of Madras High Court Judgment
The Supreme Court examined if the judgment of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 20 of 1976 operates as res judicata. It was held that for Section 11 of the CPC, the competence of the court refers to pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter, not territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the subject matter, operates as res judicata. Consequently, the decision regarding the merger of TCC with the Church of South India and the non-applicability of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment as res judicata is binding on the respondent.

Issue 2: Res Judicata of Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment
Since the judgment of the Madras High Court was held to operate as res judicata, it precluded the need to consider whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in A.S. No. 31 of 1967 operates as res judicata.

Issue 3: Merger of TCC in the Church of South India
Given the resolution of Issue 1 in favor of the appellant, the Supreme Court did not need to address the question of whether there was a merger of TCC in the Church of South India in 1947 and whether TCC ceased to exist thereafter.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 16, 1992, in Appeals Nos. 623-624 of 1979 was set aside, and the suits (O.S. Nos. 41 of 1968 and 26 of 1970) were dismissed. No orders as to costs.

Additional Orders:
In S.L.P. (CC No. 21473/93), the delay was condoned, and the legal heirs of the petitioner were brought on record. The special leave petition was dismissed as the petitioner had no subsisting cause for grievance following the dismissal of O.S. 26 of 1970.