KUNJAN NAIR SIVARAMAN NAIR versus NARAYANAN NAIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 06-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KUNJAN NAIR SIVARAMAN NAIR 
v. 
NARAYANAN NAIR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order JI, Rule 2, sub-rule 3/Kerala 
Compensation for Tenants Improvement Act, 1958; Section 2(d): 
C 
Suit for declaration of right and title and issuance of injunction in 
respect of certain property by the legal heirs-land Tribunal upheld the Tille, 
however, injunction not issued as property was in possession of the appellant! 
cultivating tenant-Suit for recove1y of possession and mesne profit-Trial 
Court decreed the suit holding that since appellant was not a tenant, provision 
D of Compensation Act not attracted-Appeals dismissed by first appellate Court 
and High Court-On appeal, Held: since cause of action in the earlier suit is 
not the same as in the subsequent suit, Courts below rightly held that 0.11, R.2 
had no application to the facts of the case-On the issue of compensation in 
lieu of improvement made on the property by the appellant, mailer remitted 
to Trial Court for adjudication afresh taking into consideration whether the 
E appellant had acted in good faith or with bona fide belief of having lawful 
possession of the disputed property and made improvement thereon-Directions 
issued. 
F 
'Principle of res judicata vis-a-vis principle underlying 0.11, R.2-
Distinction between-Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
'cause of action'-Meaning of-Discussed 
Legal maxims: 
G 
Maxims "Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium", "Res judicata pro 
veritate accipitur" and "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa"-
Applicability of-Discussed. 
Respondents, legal heirs, filed a suit for declaration of their right 
and title to the properties in question and also their possession. Trial Court 
H 
202 
.·~ 
K.N.S. NAIR v. N. NAIR 
203 
upheld the title but declined to issue injunction as property was in A 
possession of defendant/appellant. Appeal against the .iudgment was also 
dismissed. In the meanwhile, appellant filed an application before the Land 
Tribunal for purchase of the Janam right claiming himself to be a 
cultivating tenant but it was dismissed by the Tribunal. Appeal against 
the said order was also dismissed. 
Aggrieved, legal heirs/respondents filed a suit for recovery of 
possession and mesne profit. Appellant resisted the suit claiming himself 
to be co-owner of the property in dispute as the said property was given 
B 
to him by the original owner and since then he was in possession and 
enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, his son constructed a building C 
and also effected improvements on i.t and therefore entitled to get 
compensation under the provisions of Kcrala Compensation for Tenants 
Improvements Act. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court holding that 
the earlier suit was one for mere title and injunction and the cause of action 
was not the same as in the later suit. Hence, 0.11, R.2 CPC had no 
application and since the appellant was tenant in terms of the provisions D 
of the Act and no material regarding improvement in the property was 
placed, he was not eligible to get compensation. Appeal against the order 
of the Trial Court was dismissed by the Appellate Court and second appeal 
was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that since cause of action in both 
the suits was identical, 0.11, R.2 applicable; and that they were eligible to 
get benefit in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act. 
E 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that cause of action F 
of the two suits were entirely different; and that the appellant was 
ineligible to get benefits under the provisions of the Act. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Order II Rule 2 centers round one and the same cause G 
of action. A mere look at the provisions shows that once the plaintiff comes. 
to a Court of law for getting any redress basing his case on an existing 
cause of action, he must include in his suit the whole claim pertaining to 
that cause of action. But if he gives up a part of the claim based on the 
said cause of action or omits to sue in connection with the same, then he 
cannot subseque~tly resurrect the said claim based on the same cause of H · 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A action. It must be shown by the defendants for supporting their plea of 
bar of Order II, Rule 2, sub-rule (3) C.P.C. that the second suit of the 
plaintiff is b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.