Question: A sues B for certain land in his personal capacity. The suit is heard and dismissed. Against A sues B for the same land in the same court as Mutawali. Is the subsequent suit barred by Res Judicata? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to the case law on the point, if any.… Read More »

Question: A sues B for certain land in his personal capacity. The suit is heard and dismissed. Against A sues B for the same land in the same court as Mutawali. Is the subsequent suit barred by Res Judicata? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to the case law on the point, if any. [UPHJS 2000, UPCJ 2012] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A sues B for certain land in his personal capacity. The suit is heard and dismissed. Against A sues B for the...

Question: A sues B for certain land in his personal capacity. The suit is heard and dismissed. Against A sues B for the same land in the same court as Mutawali. Is the subsequent suit barred by Res Judicata? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to the case law on the point, if any. [UPHJS 2000, UPCJ 2012]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A sues B for certain land in his personal capacity. The suit is heard and dismissed. Against A sues B for the same land in the same court as Mutawali. Is the subsequent suit barred by Res Judicata? Give reasons in support of your answer and also refer to the case law on the point, if any.]

Answer

One of the essential conditions for the application of Section 11 (res judicata) is that the parties in the former suit and later suits must have been litigating under the same title (in the same capacity).

In the instant problem, ‘A’ sues ‘B’ in the previous suit in his personal capacity whereas he sues ‘B’ as Mutwali in the subsequent suit under different titles. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply in this case.

In the case of Ram Gobinda Dawan & Ors v. Smt.Bhaktabala 1971 AIR 664, the Supreme Court held that It is now well established that where a dispute as to title to receive compensation amount has been referred to a court, a decree thereon not appealed from renders the question of title res- judicata in a suit between the same parties to the dispute.

A party in such circumstances cannot be heard to say that the value of the subject matter on which the former decision was pronounced was comparatively so trifling that it was not worth their while to appeal from it.

It is true that the test of res judicata is the identity of title in the two litigations and not the identity of the actual property involved in the two cases but the previous decision must be one on a title in respect of which a dispute has been raised and which dispute was heard and finally decided by the court.

Hence, in the given question ‘A’ sues ‘B’ in the previous suit in his personal capacity whereas he sues ‘B’ as Mutwali in the subsequent suit under different titles. Thus, the doctrine of res judicata will not apply in this case.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – I of X
  2. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – II of X
  3. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – III of X
  4. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IV of X
  5. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – V of X
  6. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VI of X
  7. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VII of X
  8. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – VIII of X
  9. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – IX of X
  10. CPC Mains Questions Series: Important Questions Part – X of X
Updated On 2021-12-16T11:36:03+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story