MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL & ORS. versus DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 26-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

830 
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL & ORS. 
v. 
DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY 
February 26, 1970 
A 
(J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure 
(Act 5 of 
1908), s. 11-Jurisdiction of 
Court-Erroneous decision-If res judicata. 
The appellant obtained lease of an open land for constructioµ of build-
ings. 
After the constructions, the appellant applied 'for determination of 
standard rent under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates 
Control Act, 1947. 
The application was rejected holding that the provi· 
C 
sions of the Act did not apply to open land let for construction. This view 
\ras confirmed by the High Court. Sometime thereafter in another case 
the High Court held that the question whether the provisions of the Act 
applied to any particular lease must be determined on its terms and a 
building lease in respect of an open plot was not excluded from the pro-
visions of the Act solely because open land may be used from reside·nce or 
educational purposes only after a structure is built thereon. 
Relying upon 
this judgment, 1hc appellant filed a fresh application for determining the 
D 
standard rent. The Trial Judge rejected the, application holding that question 
of the applicability of the Act was res judicata since it had been finally 
decided by the High Court between the same paq.ies in respect of the same 
land in the earlier proceeding for fixation of standard rent. 
The order 
was confiimed by first appellate court and on further appeal by the High 
Court. 
HELD : The judgment did not operate as res judicata. 
E 
A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to 
have been finally determined by an erroneous decision o'f the Court. 
If 
by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the court holds that it has no 
jurisdiction, the decision will not, operate as res judicata. 
Similarly by an 
erroneous 
0decision if the Cotirt assumes 
jurisdiction 
which it does not 
possess under the statute, the decision will not operate as res judicata be· 
hrcen the same parties, whether the cause 
of action 
in the subsequent 
F 
litigation is the same or other\vise. 
In determining the application of the rule of res judicnta the court is 
not concerned \vith the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. 
The matter in issue. if it is one purely of fact, decided in the earlier pro· 
ceedins by a competent court must in a subsequent litigation between the 
same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. 
A 
nlixed question o'f law and fact determined in the earlier ptoceeding be· 
G 
t\\·een the same parties may not, for the ~me reason, be- questioned in a 
subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action 
is the same, for the expression 
''the matter in issue" in s. 11, Code of 
Civil Procedure means the right 
litigated 
between the parties, i.e., the 
facts on which the right is claimed ot denied and the law applicable to the 
determination of that issue. 
Where. however, the question is one purely 
of la\\' and it rcb.tes to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the 
Court sanctioning: son1ething which is illegal, by resort to the rule o'f res 
H 
judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from 
challenging the validity of th.at order because of the rule of res judicata. 
for a rule of procedure can.not supersede the law of the land. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MATHURA PRASAD V, DOSSIBAI (Shah, J.) 
831 
If the decision in the previous proceeding be regarded as conclusive it 
will assume the status of a special rule elf law applicable to the parties re-
lating to the jurisdiction of the Court, in derogation of the rule declared 
by the 'Legislature. 
f835G-836 Fl 
Parllzasardhi Ayyangar v. Chinnakrishna Ayyangar, 
I.LR. 5 Mad. 
304, Chamanlal v. Bapubhai, I.LR. 22 Born. 669, Kanta Devi v. Kala-
lvati, A.LR. 1946 Lah. 419, Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee v. Keda1· Nath 
Haldar, I.LR. 56 Cal. 723, and Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd. 
v. Municipal Council of Broken Hill, 1926 A.C. 94, approved. 
Chandi Prasad v. Maharaja Mahendra Mahrndra Singh, I.L.R. 23 All. 
5, disapproved. 
Bindeshwari Charan Singh v. Bagesl11vari, Charan Singh, L.R. 63 I.A. 
53, doubted._ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1061 
and 1627 to 1629 of 1966. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 9, 10, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Revision Appli-
cations Nos. 142

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