CASE SUMMARY: SULOCHANA AMMA Vs. NARAYAN NAIR

Author: Khushboo Chopra

CITATION

1994 SCC (2) 14

BENCH

 JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY

INTRODUCTION

The case deals with the explanation VIII of the section 11 of civil procedure code which states that an issue heard and finally decided by the court of limited jurisdiction , competent to decide such issue , shall operates as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was competent to try such later suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

FACTS

The wife of Krishnan Nair by a settlement deed gave her life estate to her husband and vested the remainder in favour of respondent. After her death, he alienated the property in favour of Narayan Nair and Chennan. The respondent file as case in the District Munsif court for restraining the Krishnan Nair from alienating the property and doing any type of wastage. The suit was pending in the court and appellant purchased the suit property from Narayan and chennan. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the husband Krishnan has no right to alienate the lands and permanent injunction was issued restraining him from committing any wastage. The appeal filed by Krishnan was dismissed.

The appellant not being party of the earlier suit. The respondent filed a second suit against Krishnan Nair and the appellant for perpetual injunction restraining them committing the acts of waste. The suit was decreed. therein the validity of the appellant’s title was left open.

The respondent filed the third case in the court of subordinate judge for declaration of his title and possession against the appellant. The trail court decree the suit and granted mesne profits. On appeal it was confirmed. The second appeal was dismissed. Thus, the argument of judicial opinion among the High court was under appeal.

ISSUE AND FACT OF LAW

Whether the decree of District Munisf court through a limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the same parties?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that decree of Dristrict Munisf Court through the limited pecuniary jurisdiction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the parties. The interpretation of the explanation VIII of section 11 of Civil Procedure code should be read with harmony.

In the suit of injunction when the title is in issue for the purpose of according a ruling, the issue directly and fundamentally arises in that case between the parties. When the similar issues are taken in the later proceeding between the similar parties or the privies in a following suit the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata.