9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or short `K' and vested remainder in favour of the respondent. She died in the year 1971. `K' alienated the property in 1972 by a registered sale deed in favour of Narayanan Nair and Chenan. The respondent filed O.S. No. 151 of 1972 in the District Munsif Court to restrain `K' from alienating the properties and committing acts of waste. Pending the suit, the appellant purchased the suit property on April 7, 1975 under Ex. B-1 from Narayanan Nair and Chennan. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree, Ex. A-2, dated November 18, 1975 decreed the suit holding that `K' had no right to alienate the lands and permanent injunction was issued restraining him from committing acts of waste. The appeal in A.S. No. 31 of 1976 by `K' was dismissed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h would indicate that the legislature intended to retain the distinction between judgments of the Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction, which will not operate as res judicata to a later suit laid in a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, on the same issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title. Explanation VIII only brings within the fold of Section 11, the decree or order of the Courts of special Jurisdiction like probate Court, land acquisition Court, rent control Court, etc. The non obstante clause incorporated in Explanation VIII would be only in relation to such decrees. The purpose of the explanation, therefore, is only to remove that anomaly. The legislature having been aware ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided and became final, so that parties are not vexed twice over; vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the Court is saved. It is based on public policy as well as private justice. They would apply, therefore, to all judicial proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It equally applies to quasi-judicial proceedings of the Tribunals other than the Civil Courts. 6.The words "competent to try such subsequent suit" have been interpreted that it must refer to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the earlier court to try the subsequent suit at the time when the first suit was brought. Mere competency to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit is not enough. A decree in a previous suit will not operate as res judicata, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly and substantially between the parties or their privies and decided finally by a competent Court or Tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction which includes pecuniary jurisdicton, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding, notwithstanding the fact that such Court of limited or special jurisdiction was not competent Court to try the subsequent suit. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit between the same parties or their privies. This question is no longer res integra. In Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Beni Madho Rakesh Singh, AIR 1938 PC 210 at p. 214, the facts were that under U.P. Land Revenue Act (3 of 1901), the consolidation and partition of the lands were effected and became fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VIII, inserted by the Amending Act of 1976 was intended to serve this purpose and to clarify this position. It, therefore, has to be held that the decree of the District Munsif, though of limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the same parties. 7.The Calcutta High Court took a very narrow view limiting the scope of Explanation VIII to the decisions of the Courts of special jurisdiction like probate, insolvency, land acquisition, Courts, Rent Controller, Land Revenue, Tribunal etc. The Kerala, Orissa and Madras High Courts have taken broader view, which view now stands approved by this Court in the aforestated decision. Take an instance, if the scope of Explanation VIII is confined to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies or their privies by operation of Section 11. The parties are precluded to raise once over the sae issue for trial. 8.It is settled law that explanation to a section is not a substantive provision by itself. It is entitled to explain the meaning of the words contained in the section or clarify certain ambiguities or clear them up. It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. Its meaning must depend upon its terms. Sometime it would be added to include something within it or to exclude from the ambit of the main provision or condition or some words occurring in it. Therefore, the explanation normally should be so read as to harmonise with and to clear up any ambiguity in the same section. 9.Sri Sukumaran further contended that the rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
