- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Laxmi Mani Dasi v. Manik Chandra Das .
Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from Title Suit No. 166 of 1979 in the Second Court of Munsif, Jangipur. The appellant-plaintiff (referred to as Laxmi Mani Dasi / Raj Laxmi Dasi in the opinion) brought the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 23 of Kahatian No. 199 of Mouza Kaiyor, against the respondent-defendant, Manik Chandra Das.
The respondent filed a written statement challenging the plaintiff's title and asserting that the property had been purchased from Ajit Kr. Saha by Laxmi Mani Dasi (also referred to as Laxmi Rani Dasi / Naku Bala Dasi), who had earlier instituted Title Suit No. 59 of 1971 in the Addl. Court of the Munsif at Jangipur against the present plaintiff (Raj Laxmi Dasi). That previous suit was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and the appellate court affirmed the decree. It was asserted that during the pendency of the previous suit the predecessor-in-interest executed a registered deed of gift transferring the property to the respondent, who was impleaded as a co-plaintiff in that earlier suit.
In the present suit the trial Court framed a preliminary issue (Issue No. 5) relating to the effect of the earlier adjudication. The trial Court and the appellate Court disposed of the suit finally on that preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. The present appeal challenges that disposal on the ground that the earlier finding does not constitute a statutory bar as contemplated under Order 14, Rule 2, and that res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be treated as an issue of law alone to dispose of the suit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a suit may be finally disposed of on the point of res judicata under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C., treating res judicata as a "bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force" under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, C.P.C.
- Whether the finding in the previous suit about identity of purchaser/title is a mixed question of law and fact (such that it cannot constitute a legal bar to dispose of the subsequent suit under Order 14, Rule 2) or whether it can be treated as an issue of law when the relevant facts are admitted or apparent on record.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (as recorded)
- Both Courts below erred in deciding and disposing of the suit on a preliminary issue under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C., because the earlier finding does not relate to jurisdiction nor does it constitute a bar to the present suit created by any law in force as contemplated by sub-rule (2) of Order 14, Rule 2.
- Even if the matter is characterized as res judicata, that is a mixed question of law and fact and therefore cannot constitute a bar of jurisdiction to the present suit or be treated as a pure question of law for disposal of the suit under Order 14, Rule 2.
- The facts relating to the determination of title in the previous suit were not admitted "in so many words" in the present suit and therefore identity of parties and subject-matter still required establishment by evidence.
- The appellant relied on precedent (Mahabir Prosad Lilha v. Biswanath Kothari (1981) 1 Cal LJ 91) for the proposition that res judicata is not a question of jurisdiction or a bar under Order 14, Rule 2; and referred to Smt. Sulochana Devi Bubna v. Sri Gobinda Chandra Nag (1986 (1) CHN 58).
Respondent's / Defendant's Contentions (as recorded)
- The respondent's written statement asserted that the property belonged to Laxmi Mani Dasi (predecessor-in-interest) who had earlier obtained a decree in Title Suit No. 59 of 1971 against the present plaintiff; that decree and the subsequent appeal had affirmed her status as purchaser from Ajit Kr. Saha.
- It was asserted that the predecessor-in-interest transferred the property by a registered deed of gift to the respondent (who was co-plaintiff in the earlier suit) and therefore the question of title and identity of purchaser was conclusively determined in the previous suit and operates as res judicata against the present plaintiff.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (1981) 1 Cal LJ 91 — Mahabir Prosad Lilha v. Biswanath Kothari | Authority cited by appellant to support that res judicata is not a question of jurisdiction and does not constitute a bar under Order 14, Rule 2; the case concerned validity of a notice terminating tenancy and concluded the question was a mixed question of law and fact. | The Court considered the decision but found it distinguishable and that the appellant's reliance on it was not persuasive in the present facts; the Court held that the present case involved admitted facts and an earlier conclusive determination of identity and title, making Mahabir Prosad Lilha inapplicable to defeat disposal under Order 14, Rule 2. |
| 1986 (1) CHN 58 — Smt. Sulochana Devi Bubna v. Sri Gobinda Chandra Nag | Referred to by appellant; presumably invoked on a related procedural point. | The Court stated that this decision has little relevance to the facts of the instant case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by stating the legal question: whether a suit can be finally disposed of on the point of res judicata under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C., treating res judicata as a "bar to the suit created by law" under clause (b) of sub-rule (2). The Court's reasoning progressed through the following steps, based only on material shown in the opinion:
- The Court observed that when the relevant facts are admitted, and an issue has been fully and finally decided in a previous suit where it was directly and substantially in issue, that prior decision constitutes a bar to the subsequent suit; res judicata therefore operates as a statutory bar under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14.
- The Court set out the factual record from the pleadings and certified copies of the earlier judgments and decrees, emphasising that the parties (and their relationships) and the subject-matter (plot No. 23) in the previous and present suits were identical. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent had been held to be the purchaser from Ajit Kr. Saha in Title Suit No. 59 of 1971, and that finding was affirmed on appeal.
- The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the identity of parties and subject-matter required further proof, noting that the certified judgments and pleadings left "no manner of doubt" as to identity and that the point was not seriously contested before the lower Courts.
- The Court analysed Section 11 of the C.P.C., observing that it bars a Court from trying any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties (or those under whom they claim) and has been heard and finally decided by a competent Court.
- The Court considered precedent cited by the appellant (Mahabir Prosad Lilha) but found the facts distinguishable: that case dealt with the validity of a notice to quit and held the issue to be mixed law and fact; in contrast, the present case involved admitted facts and a conclusive prior adjudication of identity and title.
- The Court also took into account the 1976 amendment to the C.P.C., which requires (subject to sub-rule (2)) that the Court pronounce judgment on all issues even if a case may be disposed on a preliminary issue. Under sub-rule (2), however, the Court may try first an issue of law if that issue relates to (a) jurisdiction or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force.
- Applying these principles, the Court concluded that res judicata (as provided in Section 11) is a bar contemplated by clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Order 14, Rule 2, and that the present suit could properly be disposed of on that legal issue alone. Consequently, the Courts below were justified in deciding Issue No. 5 as a preliminary issue and dismissing the suit on the basis of res judicata.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is DISMISSED.
Immediate consequences and how the holding affects the parties:
- The Court held that the finding in the previous suit (Title Suit No. 59 of 1971) and the judgment and decree passed in that suit are binding on the plaintiff in the present suit as res judicata.
- The Court held that Issue No. 5 (decided as a preliminary issue by the Courts below) constituted a bar by way of res judicata under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, C.P.C., and that the suit was properly disposed of on that ground.
- The appeal fails and is dismissed; the opinion records "There will be no order as to costs."
Broader implications: The opinion explains and applies the principle that, where facts are admitted or established on record and a previous competent Court has directly and finally decided the same issue between the same parties, res judicata may be treated as a legal bar under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C., allowing disposal on a preliminary issue. The opinion itself does not state any broader precedent-setting consequences beyond the application to the present case.
1. This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant involves only a short question of law as to whether a suit can be disposed of finally on the point of res judicata under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C treating as a bar to the suit created by law under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, C.P.C After careful consideration, I have no hesitation to hold that when the facts are admitted, a question which has been decided fully and finally being an issue, directly and substantially, in the previous suit as in the present suit, it, no doubt, stands as a bar to the subsequent suit, and in that case, res judicata also operates as a bar to the suit created by law as contemplated under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14, C.P.C
2. To elucidate this point of law, let us refer to the facts of this case. The present suit, out of which this appeal arises, being Title Suit No. 166 of 1979 in the Second Court of Munsif, Jangipur has been brought by Laxmi Mani Dasi for declaration of her title to the suit property, comprising plot No. 23 of Kahatian No. 199 of Mouza Kaiyor, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent Manik Chandra Das from disturbing her peaceful possession in the said property. The respondent-defendant Manik Chandra Das contested the suit by filing a written statement challenging the plaintiffs title and possession of the suit property. It was also asserted by the defendant-respondent in his written statement that the property in question belonged to one Ajit Kr. Saha, from whom it was purchased by Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Lakshmi Bala Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi, daughter of late Mohini Mohan Das and eldest sister of present plaintiff and that she had brought Title Suit No. 59 of 1971, in the Addl. Court of the Munsif at Jangipur, against the present plaintiff Raj Lakshmi Dasi alias Laxmi Dasi in respect of the self same property which was decreed in her favour. It has also been stated that during the pendency of the said suit she executed a registered deed of gift and transferred the property in favour of her brother the present defendant, Manik Chandra Das, who was also impleaded as a co-plaintiff in that suit. The present plaintiff who was a party defendant in the aforesaid previous suit, preferred an appeal against the decree obtained by the plaintiff in that suit which was also dismissed by the appellate Court on a finding that Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Laxmi Rani Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi, the predecessor in interest of the present defendant Manik Chandra Das was the real purchaser of the suit property from Ajit Kr. Saha. It has, therefore, been asserted that in view of the conclusive determination of the title of the present defendant Manik Chandra Das in respect of this property in the previous suit, in which the present plaintiff was the party-defendant, the matter has been settled at rest and the finding on the question of identity of the actual purchaser stands as a bar of res judicata to this suit.
3. It has been urged by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff, that both the Courts below went wrong in deciding and disposing of the suit on a preliminary issue, under O. 14, R. 2, C.P.C inasmuch as, such finding in the previous suit does not relate to a question of jurisdiction or does not constitute a bar to the present suit created by any law for the time being in force as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of O. 14, Rule 2, C.P.C It has, therefore, been urged that even if it is a question of res judicata, it is a mixed question of law and fact and in any view of the case it cannot constitute a bar of jurisdiction to the present suit, nor can stand as a bar created by any law as required under Order 14, Rule 2 to dispose of the suit finally and fully as an issue of law only.
4. I have carefully perused the judgments of both the Courts below. It is an undisputed position that Laxmi Rani Dasi alias Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi and the present plaintiff Raj Laxmi Dasi alias Laxmi Dasi and the present defendant Manik Chandra Das are the daughters and son-respectively of late Mohini Mohan Das. It is also an undisputed fact that the present plaintiff or for the matter of that defendant in that suit is the wife of Harendra Nath Ghosh of Raghunathganj Darbeshpara, District Murshidabad. It is also an undisputed fact that in the previous suit, namely, Title Suit No. 59 of 1971 of the Munsif's Court at Jangipur, Murshidabad, Laxmi Rani Dasi, daughter of late Mohini Mohan Das was the plaintiff and Raj Laxmi Dasi, wife of Harendra Nath Ghosh was the defendant and the subject-matter of that suit was also plot No. 23 among others which is the subject-matter of the present suit. Undisputedly also Manik Chandra Das is the brother of the plaintiff in this suit who was impleaded as a co-plaintiff in that suit as being a donee in respect of the suit property from the plaintiff of that suit Laxmi Mani Dasi by a deed of gift.
5. The question which arose for decision in the previous suit was whether the suit property was purchased from Ajit Kr. Saha by a registered deed of sale dated 21-1-58, by the plaintiff or the defendant in that suit. The suit brought by the predecessor in interest of the defendant Manik Chandra Das was decreed and was also affirmed on appeal being preferred by the present plaintiff who was a defendant in that suit. The question that arose in that suit and appeal previously was whether the present appellant Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Raj Laxmi was the purchaser of the suit property from Ajit Kr. Saha. It was decided clearly and unequivocally in the previous suit that the plaintiff in that suit, who was none else than the predecessor in interest of the present defendant Manik Chandra Das — Laxmi Rani Dasi alias Laxmi Mani Dasi alias Naku Bala Dasi was the purchaser of such property and her right, title and interest in the property was declared as such. The Court also found that by virtue of the deed of gift she had transferred her interest in the suit property to Manik Chandra Das who was a co-plaintiff in that suit and who figures as the defendant-respondent in the present suit.
6. The certified copies of the judgments, pleadings and the decree of the Court of appeal below, that of the District Judge, Murshidabad leave no manner of doubt that the parties in the previous suit as also the subject-matter of the present suit are identical. Confusion was sought to be created before the trial Court over the names of the present plaintiff who tried to pass off as the real purchaser from Ajit Kumar Saha. As already stated this question as to who was the real purchaser or the identity of the real purchaser was fully and conclusively determined in that suit which was affirmed in appeal. As such, it cannot be said to be a mixed question of law and fact, as because the identity of the parties in the previous suit and the subject-matter of the same has not been challenged in so many words in this suit. So, no question of dispute arises regarding the identity of the parties or that of the subject matter of the suit. This being the position, the finding as to the title relating to the suit land having been decided once for all between the parties, the same stands as a res judicata in the trial of this suit.
7. The provisions of Section 11 are quite clear on the point that no Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such suit, in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
8. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant has emphasised in vain to impress upon this Court that the facts relating to the determination of the question of title have not been admitted in so many words and that such question as to identity of the parties and the subject-matter of the suit are yet to be established by evidence on record.
9. I find no substance in such argument as because the certified copies of the judgments in the previous suit as well as the pleadings leave no manner of doubt about the identity of the parties or that of the subject-matter of the suit. Moreover, this question was not also urged so seriously, i.e, regarding the identity of the parties and subject-matter, either before the trial Court or before the appeal Court.
10. Mr. Chatterjee also referred in this connection to a decision of this Court reported in (1981) 1 Cal LJ 91 (Mahabir Prosad Lilha v. Biswanath Kothari) to urge the point that question of res judicata is not a question of jurisdiction, nor it constitutes a bar under any law as contemplated under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C The question that arose for determination in that suit was regarding the validity of a notice terminating the tenancy in that suit. The plaintiff brought the suit for eviction on the basis of a notice to quit according to English Calendar Month. The defendant contended that the tenancy having commenced from 12th of November, 1963, the notice to quit was invalid. The defendant raised the plea of non-maintainability of the suit, because of want of jurisdiction and wanted determination of the suit on preliminary issue as the validity of the notice. The prayer was rejected and was affirmed in revision on a finding that the month of tenancy is a mixed question of law and fact and is not a question of law on which the whole suit could be decided creating a bar as to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit or any other bar created by any other law for the time being in force.
11. The other decision referred to by Mr. Chatterjee is 1986 (1) CHN 58 (Smt. Sulochana Devi Bubna v. Sri Gobinda Chandra Nag) has little relevance to the facts of the instant case.
12. It is true after the amendment of the C.P.C by the Amendment Act of 1976, the Court shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) has to pronounce judgment on all issues, notwithstanding that the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue. Under sub-rule (2) if the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to— (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. The bar of res judicata as provided in Section 11 of the C.P.C constitutes such a bar as contemplated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit in question could therefore be disposed of on such an issue of law only and that is exactly what both the Courts below did. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I have no hesitation to hold that the finding in the previous suit and the judgment and decree passed in that suit are binding on the plaintiff in this suit as res judicata and there is no scope for re-agitating the same question again in this suit. Both the Courts below are, therefore, perfectly justified that issue No. 5 which was decided as a preliminary issue constitutes a bar as res judicata in deciding the present suit as contemplated under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C I find no reason, therefore, to interfere with the findings of the Courts below.
13. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
14. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Alert