M/S KAUSHIK COOP. BUILDING SOCIETY versus N. PARVATHAMMA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 11-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017) 4 S.C.R. 442 
MIS KAUSHIK COOP. BUILDING SOCIETY 
v. 
N. PARVATHAMMA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2017) 
APRILll, 2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Res Judicata: 
Principle of res judicata - Purpose and scope of - Held: The 
principle is public policy and preventive as to give finality to the 
decision of the court of competent jurisdiction and prevent further 
litigation - The application of the principle by the courts should 
not be influenced.. by technical considerations of form, but by matter 
of substance within the limits followed by law - The principle is a 
D wholesome one, which is applicable not merely to matters governed 
by th'? provisions of CPC, but to all litigations - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - s. 11. 
Adjudication in respect of property in question in previous 
cases i.e. in a suit for specific performance and in a Land Grabbing 
E case - Present Land Grabbing case filed thereafter -
Maintainabili~y 
of- Held: Not maintainable being barred by principle of res judicata 
"- The matter in issue in the present case and previous decided suit 
and Land Grabbing case is not merely identical but very same -
Once the identity of the property and the title thereof is finally 
F adjudicated, it operates as res judicata . 
. , 
Allowing the appeals filed by a.ppellant-Society and 
dismissing the appeals filed by respondents, the Court 
HELD: 1. The doctrine of res judicata is a wholesome one, 
which is applicable not merely to matters governed by the 
G provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to all litigations. 
H 
The rule of res judicata while founded on ancient precedent is 
dictated by a wisdom which is for all time and that the appiication 
of the rule by the Courts should be influenced by no technical 
considerations of form, but by matter of substance within the limits 
allowed by law. The principle of res judicata is applied for the 
442 
M/S KAUSHIK COOP. BUILDING SOCIETY v. 
443 
N. PARVATHAMMA & ORS. 
purpose of achieving finality in litigation. [Paras 6, 7)(448-F-H; 
A 
449-A) 
Bombay. Gas Co. v. Jagannath Pandurang (1975) 4 
SCC 690; Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramanandan Prasad 
Narayan 
Singh 
AIR 
1916 
PC 
78; 
Sri 
Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple v. Vadapalli Venkata 
B 
Bhavanarayana Charyulu (1970) 1 SCC 673 - relied 
on. 
2. To constitute a matter res judicata, the follol<ing 
conditions must be proved: (1) that the litigating parties must be 
the same; (2) that the subject-matter of the suit also must be c 
identical; (3) that the matter must be finally decided between the 
parties; and (4) that the suit must be decided by a court of 
competent jurisdiction. "One of the tests in deciding whether 
the doctrine of res judicata applies to a particular case or not is 
to determine whether two inconsistent decrees will come into 
existence if it is not applied." [Para 8][449-E-FJ 
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa AIR 1976 
SC 1569 ; (1976) 4 sec 780 : (1976] 3 SCR 721; 
N(1rayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu v. Narayana 
Prabhu Krishna Prabhu AIR 1977 SC 1268 : (1977) 2 
SCC 181 : [1977] 2 SCR 636 - relied on. 
3. It may be true that the Court at initial stage may not 
enter into the merit of the matter. Its opinion in the nature of 
things would be a prima facie one. But the Court must also 
consider that the analogy of res judicata or of the technical rules 
D 
E 
of civil procedure is, in cases like the present one, appropriate 
F 
and the Courts are expected to administer the law so as to 
effectuate its underlying object. Court shall also bear in mind 
that the basic character of this principle is public policy and 
preventive as to give finality to the decision of the Court of 
competent jurisdiction and prevent further litigation. [Para G 
18][452-E-F] 
4. In the present case, the matter in issue in the pending 
suit before the Special Court in LGC No.44/2000 and previous 
decided suits is not merely identical but very same. Other 
ingredients of the principle of res judicata are also fulfilled. 
H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A Moreover, once identity of the property and the title thereof is 
finally adjudicated in CCCA No.1411972, holding that land is 
situated in Survey No.129/68 Paiki, it operates as res judicata. 
[Para 19][452-G-H] 
5. Therefore, both the Special Court and the High Court 
. B have committed error in not appreciating the fact that orders, 
judgments and decrees passed in previously decided land 
gr

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