Resjudicata – Section 11

Resjudicata – Section 11. It essentially means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice It is a doctrine to give finality to a dispute. . In simple terms, it means that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their representatives..

R esjudicata. Res. Judicata. Subject matter. Adjudged.

Definition. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, 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 decided by such Court ..

Break up of the section. No court shall try any suit or issue-.

Previously asked question. “A” is an inspector in the police service. He is dismissed from serive by the DIG police for misconduct. A files a writ in the High Court on the ground that he was not given opportunity of hearing before dismissal. His writ is dismissed. A then files a suit on the grounds that he could not be dismissed by the DIG since his appointing authority was IG and only the IG could have dismissed him and not any officer below IG. Will he be successful in the suit?.

Break up of the section. In which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit It means that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit..

Matter directly and substantially in issue. The word substantial means of importance and value for the decision of the main proceeding. It is not necessary that a distinct issue should have been raised upon it. It is sufficient if the matter was in issue in substance. A matter can not be directly and substantially in issue unless in the former suit it was alleged by one party and denied or admitted either expressly or by necessary implication by the other..

Matter directly and substantially in issue. A mere expression of opinion on a question not in issue cannot operate as res judicata A matter incidentally in issue will not operate as res judicata example: in a eviction, the question of title is only incidental and therefore any finding on the question of title will not operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title A matter can not be directly and substantially in issue if the Judgment would be correct whether the matter exists or not..

Previously asked Question. A , alleging that he is the adopted son of X sues B to recover certain property granted to him by X under a deed and forming part of the estate of X. The court finds that A is not the adopted son of X, but that he is entitled to the property under the deed and a decree is passed in favour of A. Will the finding that A is not the adopted son of X operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B in which the question of adoption is again put in issue ?.

Solution. One of the requirements for application of Rule of res judicata as embodied in Section 11 C.P.C. is that Judgement of Court must be on a matter which was directly and substantially in issue between parties. Decisions on the matters collateral and incidental to main issues in the case will not operate as res judicata. A finding on an issue cannot be said to be necessary to the decision of a suit unless the decision was based upon that finding. In the case in hand, the finding that A is not the adopted son of X will not operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between A and B in which the question of adoption is again put in issue, for the decree being in favour of A, A could not have appealed from that finding. The Court having found that A was entitled to the property under the deed, the finding on the question of adoption was not necessary to the determination of the suit. The decree, far from being based on the finding as to adoption, was made in spite of it..

Same parties. The second condition of res judicata is that the former suit must be between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim A party is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of the decision. Illustration: A sues B for rent, B contends that A is not the landlord and the suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit either between A and B for rent is barred. A sues B for for rent. B contends that C and not A is the landlord. A fails to prove his title and the suit is dismissed/ A then sues B and C for a declaration of his title to the property. The suit is not barred as the parties in both the suits are not the same..

Between parties under whom they or any of them claim.

Litigating under the same title. The word litigating under the same title means same capacity. Example: A sues B in private capacity for a loan that he has advanced will not be a resjudicata if in a subsequent suit A sues B as managing director of the company to which the loan was advanced. A sues B, C and D in individual capacity on a finding that a particular temple is public property will not bar a suit by B,C and D as trustee o f the temple against A for declaration that the same temple is a public property.

Court competent to try such subsequent suit. It must be remembered that the former court must be competent to try the subsequent suit. Such competence must be there when the former court decided the former suit. Competence is not be tested by territorial Jurisdiction. Example: A claimed the property situated in Kanpur on the basis that as adopted son of C he has succeeded the property. B denies that A was the adopted son. Court in Kanpur holds A to be adopted son of C and declares him to be owner. Subsequently A files a suit in Mumbai for declaration that he is the owner of a property situated in Mumbai as adopted son of C. B again denies that A is the adopted son of C. Even though the Court in Kanpur whch decided the former suit does not have jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit but still the finding that A is the adopted son of C will operate as res judicata in the second suit since competency is not to be judged on the basis of territorial jurisdiction..

Or the suit in which the issue was subsequently raised.

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..

Court of Limited Jurisdiction: Meaning. There are various types of Courts such as: Revenue Court which have jurisdiction to decide revenue matters but not titles. Rent Control Courts which have exclusive jurisdiction to decide issues such as eviction matters or fixation of rents etc these courts again do not have jurisdiction to decide matters relating to titles etc. Tax Tribunals which have authority to decide tax matters but not Civil disputes. Explanation 8 only means that if such courts of limited Jurisdiction have given a finding on any issue which it was competent to decide then the finding on that particular issue would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit even though the former court did not have Jursidiction to try the second suit. Thus rule 8 is the exception to the general rule that the former court should have jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit..

Must have been heard and finally decided in former suit.

Previous Year Question. Does resjudicata apply in the following circumstances: If the previous suit was dismissed for default If the previous case was decided by a Court of Exclusive Jurisdiction If the previous suit was compromised If the previous decision was given by a court having no jurisdiction If the previous decision was erroneous in law.

Answer. If the previous suit was dismissed for default then resjudicaa will not apply since the case was not finally heard and decided. The subsequent suit may however be barred by Order 9 Rule 9 if the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8. If the previous suit was decided by Court of exclusive Jurisdiction then the principle of Resjudicata will apply in light of Explanation VIII. he principle of res judicata as applied to courts of exclusive jurisdiction was enunciated in Rajlakshmi Dasi's case, AIR 1953 SC 38. Resjudicata does not apply if the previous suit was compromised. However the compromise decree will act as estoppel. If the previous decision was given by a court having no jurisdiction then the Judgment will not act as resjudicata Even if the previous decision is erroneous in law it will act as res judicata..

Constructive Resjudicata. The principle of constructive res judicata is given in explanation IV of section 11 which provides that ; Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit . In simple terms it merely means that if a person had the opportunity to raise a plea of defence or attack but has omitted to raise that plea then he shall be barred from taking that plea in the subsequent suit on the basis of principle of resj udicata ..

C Program Files x86 Microsoft Office MEDIA CAGCAT10 j0286034 wmf.

. resjudicata.