SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 06-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016) 4 S.C.R. 391 
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. 
A 
... 
v. 
RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4083-4084of2016) 
MAY06, 2016 
B 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.) 
Res judicata - Applicability of - Previous proceedings - Based 
on different cause of action and in respect of different subject matter, 
though between the same parties - Whether would operate as res c 
judicata -Held: When the cause of action as well as subject matter 
are different, principle of res judicata is not attracted and the court 
is not barred.from trying the subsequent suit which may arise between 
the same parties - All the issues including those of facts, remain 
open for adjudication - However, the issues of facts will be barred 
on the principle of 'estoppel ', more particularly 'issue estoppel' 
D 
which flows from principles of evidence from ss.115, 116 and 117 
of Evidence Act, and from the principles of equity - But where the · 
decision is on the pure question of law such bar cannot be invoked, 
either on the principle of 'estoppel' or on 'equity' - No equitable 
principle or equity can impede the powers of the court to determine 
E 
an issue of law in a subsequent suit. which relates to different subject 
matter and founded upon different cause of action, though parties 
may be same - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. l I - Evidence 
Act, 1872 - ss.115, 116 and 117 - Estoppel. 
Estoppel - Applicability of - Principle of estoppel operates 
F 
against the party and not the court. 
Estoppel - Nature of - As a principle of evidence, estoppel is 
treated to be an aamission or something equivalent to admission in 
the eyes of law - Evidence. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court-
G 
HELD: 1.1 Once a judgment in a former suit or proceeding 
acquires finality, it binds the parties totally and completely on all 
'--· 
issues relating to the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. 
This flows from Section 11 of the CPC which in turn is based 
upon ancient doctrines embodied in every civilized system of 
H 
391 
392 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
jurisprudence with almost universal application that an earlier 
adjudication between the same parties is conclusive in respect 
of the same subject matter. The Latin maxims relevant for 
explaining the concept of res judicata clearly specify that: (1) no 
man should be vexed twice for the same cause, (2) it is in the 
interest of State that there should be an end to a litigation and (3) 
a judicial decision once it has attained finality must be accepted 
as correct between the parties. [Para 12] (401-B-C] 
1.2 Strictly speaking, when the cause of action as well as 
the subject matter i.e, the property in issue in- the subsequent 
suit are entirely different, res judicata is not attracted and the 
competent Court is therefore not debarred from trying the 
subsequent suit which may arise between the same parties in 
respect of other properties and upon a different cause of action. 
In such a situation, since the Court is not debarred, all issues 
including those of facts remain open for adjudication by the 
competent Court and the principle which is attracted against the 
party which has lost on an important issue of fact in the earlier 
suit is the principle of estoppel, more particularly "issue estoppel" 
which flows from principles of evidence such as from Sections 
115, 116 and 117 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and from principles 
of equity. As a principle of evidence, estoppel is treated to be an 
admission or in the eyes of law something equivalent to an 
admission of such quality and nature that the maker is not allowed 
to contradict it.The issues of facts once finally determined will 
stare at the parties and bind them on account of earlier judgJDents 
or for any other good reason where equitable principles of estoppel 
are attracted. [Paras 13 and 14] (401-E-F; 402-D-E] 
1.3 The High Court is right in holding that previous 
proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues 
of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law when the 
subsequent suit or proceeding is based upon a different cause of 
action and in respect of different property though between the 
same parties. [Para 12] [400-G-H; 401-A] 
Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim AIR 1966 All 84 (FB); 
Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra 
2011 (1) SCR 321 : (2011) 2 SCC 705; Isabella Johnson 
v. MA. Susai AIR 1991 SC 993 :1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ 

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