Res Judicata

Question 1

Explain res judicata

Answer 1

Res Judicata as a concept applies to both civil and criminal systems and stands for ‘the thing has been judged’ meaning that the same issue has been decided by another court between the same parties. In order to preserve the effect of the first judgment, the doctrine of res judicata is applied by the judges.

Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure deals with this concept. It embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment, as to the points decided either of fact, or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. It enacts that once a competent court finally decides a matter; no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. In the absence of such a rule there will be no end to litigation and the parties would be put to constant trouble, harassment and expenses.
Nature and scope
The doctrine of Carter is conceived in the larger Public Interest which requires that all litigation must sooner than later come to an end the principle is also founded on Justice, equity and good conscience which requires that a party who has once succeeded in an issue should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issue

The doctrine of Res Judicata is based on three Roman maxims:
(a) No man should be vexed (annoyed) twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
(b) That it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation; and interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium
(c) The meaning as a judicial decision must be accepted as correct res judicata pro veritate occipitur
(D) exceptio res judicatae previous judgement is a bar to subsequent suit

Question 2

Title

Answer 2

Title is a legal capacity of a party with respect to the subject matter and relief claimed in the suit.
Every distinct title gives different cause of action and sec 11 will not apply.

An individual may have different legal capacity in different circumstances and every distinct legal capacity will give him disting title and a distinct cause of action, for every distinct title he can file a separate suit and dress res judicata will not apply even if other conditions of section 11 are fulfilled.
If title is the same but matter in issue is different then constructive res judicata will apply

If in a case matter in issue in subsequent suit appears to be such as could have been raised in form a suit then as a matter of precaution before applying construtive RJ it shall always be examined whether the title are same or not if title is not same then rj apply

Question 3

R.J v o2r2

Answer 3

If cause of action is same and relief claim is different RJ will not apply rather o2r2 will apply when cause of action is same but relief claim is different o2r2 will apply

Question 4

Competent court

Answer 4

CASE ANALYSIS SULOCHANA AMMA VS. NARAYAN NAIR

Introduction The case deals with the explanation VIII of the section 11 of civil procedure code which states that an issue heard and finally decided by the court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operates as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was competent to try such later suit or the suit in which suchissue has been subsequently raised.

As per Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issuein a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of themclaim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decidedby such Court.

Explanation VIII.– An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Facts of the Case -:1. The wife of Krishnan Nair by a settlement deed gave her life estate to her husband and vested the remainder in favour of respondent. After her death, he alienated the property in favour of Narayan Nair and Chennan. The respondent file as case in the District Munsif court for restraining the Krishnan Nair from alienating the property and doing any type of wastage.
2. The suit was pending in the court and appellant purchased the suit property from Narayan and chennan. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the husband Krishnan has no right to alienate the lands and permanent injunction was issued restraining him from committing any wastage. The appeal filed by Krishnan was dismissed. The appellant not being party of the earlier suit.
3. The respondent filed a second suit against Krishnan Nair and the appellant for perpetual injunction restraining them committing the acts of waste. The suit was decreed. therein the validity of the appellant’s title was left open.
4. The respondent filed the third case in the court of subordinate judge for declaration of his title and possession against the appellant. The trail court decree the suit and granted mesne profits. On appeal it was confirmed.
5. The second appeal was dismissed. Thus, the argument of judicial opinion among the High court was under appeal.
Issues -:Whether the decree of District Munisf court through a limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the same parties?
Rationale of the Court -:In a suit for an injunction when the title is in issue for the purpose of granting an injunction, the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties. When the same issue is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata.Therefore, even the degree 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 the title, where the same issue directly and substantially arises between the parties.Decision of the court:The court held that decree of District Munisf Court through the limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the parties. The interpretation of the explanation VIII of section 11 of Civil Procedure code should be read with harmony. In the suit of injunction when the title is in issue for the purpose of according a ruling, the issue directly and fundamentally arises in that case between the parties. When the similar issues aretaken in the later proceeding between the similar parties or the privies in a following suit the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata.

Judgement -:The court held that decree of District Munisf Court through the limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the parties. The interpretation of the explanation VIII of section 11 of Civil Procedure code should be read with harmony.In the suit of injunction when the title is in issue for the purpose of according a ruling, the issue directly and fundamentally arises in that case between the parties. When the similar issues are taken in the later proceeding between the similar parties or the privies in a following suit the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata

Question 5

Res Judicata on consent decree

Answer 5

Sensex suit cannot be said to be heard and finally decided rest duty Carter will not apply instead it is prohibited under o23 rule 3A
Once a consent decree has been pass as per order 23 rule 3 parties are bound by principal of estoppel and neither of them can turn back from compromise to avoid decree and file fresh suit

Question 6

Res Judicata on Abatement suit

Answer 6

In suit was not decided on merit therefore RJ not apply on subsequent suit however o22r9 prohibits subsequent suit on save cause of action and force subsequent suit cannot be filed on basis of estopple

Question 7

R.j on non speaking orders

Answer 7

If judgement was a non speaking judgement for reason were not recorded then it will be set that suit was not heard and finally decided hence RJ will not apply

Question 8

Parties claiming under same parties

Answer 8

This condition recognises the general principle of law that judgement and decree binds the parties and their privies
In order to sustain the play of RJ it is not that all the parties to the litigation must be common all that is necessary is that the issue should be between same parties and under whom they claim there should be a litigating connection between new party and former party if the parties to the subsequent suit or either of them has changed then the litigating connection between parties to subsequent suit and party to former suit has to be examined, if it is found that there was a litigating connection through some lawful transaction for a instance sale will gift succession reversion et cetera then it will be sad that the party to subsequent suit is climbing through a party to form a suit and hands if other conditions are fulfilled then res judicata will apply

Question 9

Matter in issue

Answer 9

It is the fact on which the right is claim and the law applicable to the determination of the issue these are the facts which will go on to prove or disproof cause of action

Matter which are essential in suit in order to prove or disprove the cause of action will be called a matter directly and substantially in issue it is duty of party to raise also issues in suit as it is these issues which will ultimately bring about the final determination of the suit

Any matter which is not essential to final determination of suit will be called matter collaterally and incidentally in issue these matter were not required to be decided in the suit and they were raised unnecessarily by a party where as they are not essential for the suit

Question 10

Constructive res judicata

Answer 10

I.e res judicata by construction or implication

Whenever suit is filled it is expected that the parties must raise all issues which are directly and substantially in issue because it is duty of party to make suit comprehensive and avoid multiplicity of proceedings o2r1

Whenever a suit is heard and finally decided it will be said that the court has finally heard and decided not only the issue which were actually raised by party but also the issue which will not raised by party but which might and ought to have been raised by party, such issue will be deemed to have been hard and finally decided by way of rule of constructive res judicata

Question 11

Heard and finally decided

Answer 11

To be done

Question 12

R.j on appeals

Answer 12

Sheodan singh v daryao kanwar

Narhari v Shankar

Question 13

R.j in cases where suit withdrawn

Answer 13

023 R1(3)(4)

Question 14

Rj on representative suit and PIL

Answer 14

Exp 6

RJ will apply on a representative suit if the person who has now for the suit was represented by a party in Pharma suit such person will be set in the subsequent suit to be clay me the party to form a suit provided party to form a suit was litigating Bonafide and respect of public of private right

In PIL directly section 11 will not apply as it is not a suit but the principle of section 11 will apply forward construction ko v Prabhat Mandal 1986

Question 15

Exp 7

Answer 15

Whenever execution proceedings are conducted and the executing Court has heard and finally decided the question raised in the proceeding and later on in another execution proceedings between same parties the same question is raised again then RJ will apply and it will be said that question has already been heard and finally decided between same parties in former execution proceeding

Question 16

Rj on interim orders

Answer 16

Depends on the fact

Facts can be static and dynamic
In such cases the approach of Court has to be that court will exam in nature of issue and facts on which issue is based and then it has to examine whether the set facts are subject to change with passage of time or not.

dynamic Facts
Facts which are subject to change with time or dynamic facts RJ will not apply upon such fact for example order of temporary in Junction attachment of property arrest of defendant appointment of receiver et cetera

static facts
Facts on which issue dependent a static are not subject to change with passage of time then RJ well apply example issue of Jurisdiction limitation code fee under valuation implement of party etc

Have we are not concerned with issue on merit brother we are concerned with other issues issues on merit of case will never be decided earlier before final judgement together all such issues on merit will be decided at once at stage of final judgement

Question 17

Rj on erroneous decision

Answer 17

If the Court has passed wrong judgement on question of fact or a wrong judgement on mixed question of fact and law then RJ would still apply the affected party could only go in appeal but he cannot file subsequent suit

If wrong decision was reached to a pure question of law for resistance a question of Jurisdiction or limitation then RJ would not apply if it was a pure question of law related to interpretation of some procedure but that law directly affect substantive right of parties than also RJ will apply

Isabella Johnson v M A susai 1990

mathura prasad bajoo jaiswa, & others v dossibai n b jeejeebhoy 1970

Question 18

Constructive rj and inconsistent pleadings

Answer 18

Whenever a party claims a legal right he can prove that legal right on basis of more than one matter in issue then he must race all those matter in issue in same suit through his bleedings if this pleadings are not opposite to each other than the party can make all pleadings in same suit and he can prove all of them or either of them by which we can prove the right the parties under duty to raise all pleadings in suit otherwise the subsequent suit will be barred by constructive RJ.

If bleedings are inconsistent with each other there for they are in conflict with each other then also rule is that such platings can be raised in same suit by way of amendment of platings Under order 6 rule 7 red with Rule 1 if one was not raised in earlier suit then in subsequent suit constructive RJ will apply

However if the conflict between leadings is of such extent that fact on which various plating can be proved a totally opposite to each other and I’m mutually destructive then they cannot be claimed together and same suit if one of them which was not claimed in earlier suit is claimed on subsequent suit then constructive RJ will not apply as that matter in issue might not have been rave informer suit

Question 19

Misc

Answer 19

Ple of RJ can be raised at any stage but after filing WS it can be raised only by amendment of leading

Theoretically Court can raise please of RJ sumoto in interest of Justice but sin citizen extremely technical please the elements of section 11 need to be prove by party and unless party himself has raised it will not be possible for court to prove rj and theirfore in practical circumstances it is party only who will prove plea of RJ

If RJ was not raised by party concerned and in second suit degree was passed by Court then such decree will be valid answers the concern party did not a days Plea of RJ estoppel will apply upon him however if party concerned is able to prove fraud or force applied by other party then since a stopped does not apply upon force and fraud the first degree will be valid