1993 (9) TMI 130 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 Held that - In this case, when the right and interest of the respondent were questioned in his suit against K the validity of the settlement deed and the terms thereof were gone into. The Civil Court found that K acquired life-estate under the settlement deed executed by his wife conferring vested remainder in the respondent and on its basis the respondent was declared entitled to an injunction against K who was prohibited not only from committing acts of waste, but also from alienating the properties in favour of third parties. The later suit of injunction to which the appellant was a party also binds the appellant. Therefore, even the decree founded on equitable relief in which the issue was directly and substantially in issue and decided, and attained finality would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit based on title where the same issue directly and substantially arises between the parties. The appellant is a person deriving title from K who was a party in the former suit is also hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Accordingly, we hold that the view of the Calcutta High Court is not good law and contra view is upheld. The judgments and decree under Exs. A-2 to A-5 operate as res judicata against the appellant, who derives his title from K . The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding res judicata.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the conflict of judicial opinion among High Courts in interpreting Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case involved a dispute over a settlement deed executed by Kutty Amma in 1961, which granted a life-estate to her husband and vested remainder in the respondent. The appellant purchased the property under a registered sale deed in 1972. Various suits were filed, leading to decrees under Exs. A-2 to A-5, concluding that the appellant did not acquire any title and was bound by the previous decrees. The central issue was whether the appellant was bound by the principle of res judicata due to the earlier decrees.

The appellant's counsel argued that Section 11 and Explanation VIII should be read harmoniously, emphasizing that the legislature intended to retain the distinction between judgments of courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction and unlimited jurisdiction. The purpose of Explanation VIII was to bring certain decrees within the ambit of Section 11, clarifying the law on res judicata. The judgment discussed conflicting views of different High Courts and highlighted the need to prevent vexatious litigation and ensure finality in legal proceedings.

The judgment delved into the scope of Section 11, emphasizing its role in preventing multiple proceedings on the same issue between the same parties. It clarified that res judicata does not create rights but bars relitigation on the same issue. The interpretation of the words "competent to try such subsequent suit" was crucial, requiring the court to have jurisdiction over both the initial and subsequent suits for res judicata to apply. The introduction of Explanation VIII aimed to remove anomalies and extend the conclusiveness of issues decided by courts of special or limited jurisdiction.

The judgment rejected the narrow view taken by the Calcutta High Court on Explanation VIII and upheld the broader interpretations of the Kerala, Orissa, and Madras High Courts. It emphasized the need for consistency in applying res judicata principles to avoid conflicting decisions and endless litigation. The doctrine of lis pendens under the Transfer of Property Act was also invoked to support the decision.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judgments and decrees under Exs. A-2 to A-5 operated as res judicata against the appellant. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal, affirming the broader interpretation of Explanation VIII and the principles of res judicata in the context of the case.