Doctrine of “RES JUDICATA” (RJ) under CPC, 1908

Doctrine of “RES JUDICATA” (RJ)under CPC, 1908

Res Judicata (RJ)[1]—Section 11

The doctrine of Res-judicata is a branch of English “doctrine of estoppel“.
Res means ‘things’ and judicata means ‘decided’. It is a fundamental doctrine based upon the principle of “conclusiveness of judgment and finality of litigation“.
The Principle of RJ is based upon the ancient principle of ‘Prangnyaya’ (previous judgment).
The rule of RJ is based upon the following three maxims of public policy and private justice—

(A) “Interest republicae ut sit finis litum” i.e. it is to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation.

(B) “Nemo debet lis vexari pro uno et eadem causa” i.e. no one shall be vexed twice for the same cause of action.

Leading cases on Res-judicata—

Daryao vs. State of U.P. (1961: SC)—In this case it was held that RJ operates on all writs except the writ of Habeas Corpus. Other important cases are–Satyacharan vs. Devrajan; Doughes of Kingston; Munnibibi vs. Triloknath; Bairam Pastoonji Kariwala vs. UoI

Applicability of RJ—

The rule of RJ is applicable in following cases—

all proceedings whether civil or otherwise
quasi-judicial proceedings.
Public interest litigation (PIL).
ex-parte decree provided the decision should be on merit.
Interlocutory order (maintainability of suit, jurisdiction of suit etc.)

Non-applicability of RJ—

In the following cases rule of RJ is not applicable—

Compromise decree as it is not decided on merits.
Withdrawal of suit.

Definition—

Section 11 provides that no court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue (either actually or/ and constructively in issue) in a former suit decided by the competent court between the same parties or representatives thereto. However, it is not necessary that the subject matter of both the suits should be same.

Illustration:

A, a co-sharer, files a suit for partition. The defendant alleged that he has right of way over property in suit which may be taken into account at the time of allotting shares. The right of way neither challenged nor issue framed as to its existence. The decision in this partition suit will not operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit as to existence of the right to way.
A sues for a sum of money on a contract for the supply of boats and on failing therein sues again for the same amount as compensation for services rendered in supplying boats. The suit is barred because the latter ground could have been advanced in the former suit.
A sues B for possession of land on the basis of the title. Suit is decreed. B did not take the defence that he was entitled to compensation for improvements. Here, B can not do so by a fresh suit.

Essentials of RJ—

It is not necessary that every matter decided in a former suit will operate as res-judicata in a subsequent suit. The following conditions must be satisfied to attract Section 11—

(A) Matter be directly & substantially in issue—

Matter in issue may be of two kinds—(a) matters directly and substantially in issue; (b) matters collaterally or incidentally in issue.
RL is applicable only to the matter which is directly & substantially (D&S) in issue. Thus, RJ is not applicable on matter which is collaterally or incidently in issue.
RJ is applicable only to matter D&S and not to matters collaterally or incidentally in issue.
Explanation III attached to section 11 makes it clear that matter can not be said to have been directly and substantially in issue in a suit unless it was alleged by one party and either denied or admitted by other party. Thus, the matter in respect of which no relief was claimed can not become directly and substantially in issue. Illustration: A sues B for rent due. The defence of B is that no rent is due. Here the claim for rent is the matter in respect of which the relief is claimed is a matter directly and substantially in issue.
Matter D&S may be further arranged into—(a) matter actually in issue; and (b) matter constructively in issue.
Explanation I mentions that a matter is actually in issue when it is alleged by one party and denied or admitted by the other. Explanation IV provides that a matter is constructively in issue when it might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in the former suit.

(B) Same Parties—

Second condition is that the former suit must have been between the same parties or representatives thereto. A party may be a plaintiff or defendant. Illustration: A sues B for rent. B contends that A is the landlord. A fails to prove his title and the suit is dismissed. Here, any subsequent suit either by A or X claiming through A is barred by res-judicata.

RJ b/w co-defendants—

As a matter may be RJ b/w a plaintiff and a defendant, similarly it may be RJ b/w co-defendants and co-plaintiffs also. An adjudication will operate as res judicata b/w co-defendants if the following conditions are satisfied—

There must be a conflict of interest b/w co-defendants;
It is necessary to decide that conflict in order to give relief to the party.
The questions b/w defendants must have been decided.
The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.

Illustration: A sues B, C & D for certain property. In order to decide the claim of A, the Court has to interpret a Will. The Will was construed by the court. Here, the construction of Will by the Court shall will bind the defendants and will operate as res-judicata in any subsequent suit by any of the defendants against the rest.

RJ b/w co-plaintiffs—

In such cases there is conflict of interest b/w the plaintiffs. Where there is conflict of interests between the plaintiffs and it is necessary to resolve the same to give relief to the defendants, the decision on such conflicts shall operate as res-judicata between the co-plaintiffs in the subsequent suit.

Pro forma defendant (PFD)—

A defendant to a suit against whom no relief is claimed is called a pro forma defendant. A person may be added as PFD in a suit merely because his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions involved in the suit. In such a case, no relief is sought against him. Here, the doctrine of Res-judicata or Constructive res-judicata does not apply against such proforma party in a subsequent suit. Illustration: A sues B for possession of certain property. A contends that he is tenant of X. Now, “X” is joined as pro-forma defendant and no relief is claimed against him. The suit is dismissed on the findings that B is the owner. X then sues B for possession and B contends that the issue of ownership is barred by res-judicata. Here the contention is groundless as the issue was decided in the former suit between A and B and not between X and B wherein X was simply a proforma defendant and no relief had been claimed against X in the former suit.

(C) Same Title—

The third condition of RJ is that the parties to the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title as in the former suit. Same title means same capacity and same quality of demand. The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit.
Illustration: A sues B for title to the property as an heir of C under the customary law. The suit is dismissed. The subsequent suit for title to the property as an heir of C under the personal law is barred.
Illustration: A sues B for possession of math property as an heir of Mahant. The suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit by A against B as the manager of the Math is not barred.

(D) Competent Court—

The fourth condition is that the court which determined the former suit must be competent to try the subsequent suit. Thus the decision of the court not competent to try such suit will not operate as RJ.

(E) Heard & finally decided—

The questions in subsequent suit should have been heard and finally decided in the earlier suit on merit.

Explanations to Section 11-

Section 11 is further supplemented by total 8 numbers of explanations which are as under—

Explanation I—It provides that the expression “former suit” denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question. Thus date of disposal of suit is material and not the date of institution of suit.
Explanation II—The competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
Explanation III—The matter referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
Explanation IV—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
Explanation V—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall be deemed to have been refused.
Explanation VI—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Thus RJ is applicable on representative suit also.
Explanation VII—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. (BJ-1999). Thus RJ is applicable on execution decree also.
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 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.

________________________________________

[1].What is res judicata? Distinguish it from estoppels.

_______________________________________________

Prepared by Team LegalMines.

Doctrine of “RES JUDICATA” (RJ) under CPC, 1908