LexSULOCHANA AMMA versus NARAYANAN NAIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B SULOCHANA AMMA v. NARAYANAN NAIR SEPTEMBER 24, 1993 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Explanation VIII to Sectionll--fntro- duced by the Amending Act of 1976-Explanation to be read harmoniously with Section 11-0rder or issue arising directly and substantially between C parties-decided finally by a competent Court or tribunal even of limited jurisdiction including pecuniary jurisdiction-Subsequent proceeding between same parties raising issues decided in the earlier suit-Though ti.at Court of limited jurisdiction or special jurisdiction not competent to try the subsequent suit the earlier proceedings operate as res judicata. D Interpretation of Statutes: Explanation to a Section in a statute-Not a substantive provision by itself - but part and parcel or enactment - to be read harmoniously with Section to clear any ambiguity. By virtue of a settlement deed dated 19.5.1961 one 'K' got life estate E in respect of his wife's property and the remainder vested in favour of the respondent. After her death, 'K' alienated the property in 1972. Respon- dent filed a suit to restrain 'K' from alienating the properties and commit- ting acts of waste. During the pendency of the suit, appellant purchased the suit property. F The trial Court decreed the suit holding that 'K' bad no right to alienate the lands. Permanent injunction was issued restraining him from committing acts of waste. Appeal preferred by 'K' was dismissed. Since the appellant was not made a party in the suit, Respondent filed a fresh suit against 'K' and the appellant for perpetual injunction restraining them G from committing acts or waste. The suit was decreed, but the validity of the appellant's title was left open. Respondent filed another suit for declaration of bis title and possession against the appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit and granted mesne profits. Unable to succeed in the appeal and second appeal, appellant preferred the present appeal. H On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that S. 11 CPC and 620 SULOCHANA v. NAIR [RAMASWAMY, J.] 521 Explanatfon VIII thereof should be read harmoniously; that the Amending A Act of 1976 made no attempt to delete the words "Court competent to try such suit" in the main section, which would indicate that the legislature intended to retain the distinction between judgments of the Court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction which will not operate as res judicata to a later suit laid in a court of unlimited jurisdiction, on: the same issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title; that Explanation VIII only brought within B the fold of Section 11, the decree or order of the Courts of special jurisdiction, like probate Court, land acquisition Court, rent control Court etc; and that the non-obstante clause incorporated in Explanation VIII would only be in relation to such decrees; and that the purpose of the C explanation was only to remove that anomaly. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. A decree in a previous suit will not operate as res judicata, D unless the Judge by whom it was made, had jurisdiction to try and decide, not that particular suit, but also the subsequent suit itself in which the issue ls subsequently raised. This interpretation had consistently been adopted before the introduction of Explanation VIII. So the earlier decree of the court of a limited pecuniary jurisdiction would not operate as res judicata when the same issue is directly and substantially in issue in a later suit filed E in a court of unlimited jurisdiction. It had, therefore, become necessary to bring in the statute Explanation VIII. To cull out its scope and ambit, it must be read along with Section 11, to tind the purpose it seeks to serve. The Law Commission in its report recommended to remove the anomaly and bring within its fold the conclusiveness of an issue in a former suit decided p by any court, be it either of limited pecuniary jurisdiction or of special jurisdiction, like insolvency court, probate court, land acquisition court, Rent Controller, Revenue Tribunal, etc. No doubt the main body of Section 11 was not amended, yet the expression '.'the court oflimite!Jjurisdiction" in Explanation VIII ia wide enough to include a court whose jurisdiction is G subject to pecuniary limitation and other cognate expression analogous thereto. Therefore, S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.