Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Sadasiva Aiyar
  • Spencer, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Sadasiva Aiyar
  • Spencer, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns rival claims to several plots of land (referred to as item 1 and plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h)). The plaintiffs' right to possession arose on the death of Ammani Ammal in January 1905. Defendant 1 is said to have taken wrongful possession of item 1 and of the plaint plots. The plaintiff had earlier instituted Original Suit No. 100 of 1908 for recovery of item 1 alone; the present litigation is Suit No. 198 of 1910 in which the plaintiff seeks recovery of the additional plaint plots. This matter reached the High Court by way of a second appeal. The Court considered (a) whether it could review findings of fact made by the lower appellate Court; (b) a contention that a Court-auction purchase by the decree-holder's agent without permission under Section 294 of the CPC was ineffective; and (c) whether O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 of the CPC barred the plaintiff's present suit in respect of plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) because of the earlier suit.

The High Court remanded the case to the lower appellate Court to decide a specific issue concerning whether defendant 1's taking of wrongful possession of item 1 formed part of the same transaction as the taking of possession of the disputed plots and when those acts occurred. The lower appellate Court (through the temporary Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly) returned a finding that the acts did not form part of the same transaction, that the former act occurred in or about January 1905 and that the latter occurred in or about the year 1900. The High Court accepted that finding and dismissed the second appeal with costs.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court in a second appeal can go behind the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court (i.e., whether findings of fact are open to reconsideration in this second appeal).
  2. Whether a purchase at a Court auction by the decree-holder's agent without obtaining the Court's permission under Section 294 of the CPC can be recognized as conferring title on the auction-purchaser or the decree-holder (as argued and previously considered in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911).
  3. Whether O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 of the CPC (S. 43 of the old Code) bars the plaintiff from bringing the present suit in respect of plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) because the plaintiff had previously sued for item 1 alone (Original Suit No. 100 of 1908), i.e., whether the earlier suit constituted a bar to the subsequent suit.
  4. If the bar under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 is relied on, whether the two alleged trespasses (on item 1 and on the other plaint plots) occurred on or about the same date and as part of the same transaction so as to constitute a single cause of action.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911 The objection that a purchase at Court auction by the decree-holder's agent without the Court's permission under Section 294 CPC could be impeached — the earlier decision overruled that contention, noting that it was an objection that could be raised only by parties to the suit and not by a stranger like defendant 1. The Court relied on that earlier ruling to dispose of the contention that the auction purchase (by the decree-holder's agent without permission) could not be recognized as conferring title against defendant 1.
Manonmani Ammal v. Vythialinga Naicker Held that though the bundles of facts to be proved in two suits may not be identical, the cause of action for both suits may still be the same under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3; each case depends on its facts and it can be difficult to decide which facts form part of a particular cause of action. The Court cited this authority to explain that the question whether two suits arise from the same cause of action is fact-dependent and can be difficult; it used the case to illustrate that separate transactions may nevertheless constitute one cause of action in certain circumstances (example of shares of an undivided Hindu family).
Kuppuswamy Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar Distinguished in Miller, J.'s judgment in the Manonmani case on the ground that different and separate parcels of land were in question in that case. The Court noted the distinction to show that where different and separate parcels are involved the rule in Manonmani may not apply; used as a point of comparison in analyzing whether the present matters involved the same cause of action.
Gangi v. Ramaswami Held that if the defendants are different and the properties in the suits are different, O. 2, R. 2 is no bar to the second suit even though the plaintiff and the title relied on are the same in both suits. The Court relied on this principle to explain that when the same defendant and the same title are involved, the bar may apply; it contrasted Gangi with the present case (where defendant 1 is the principal defendant in both suits) to indicate the potential applicability of O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3.
Shanmugam Pillai v. Syed Gulam Ghose Held that where a landholder obtained two separate muchilikas for different faslis and sued first for rent of one fasli, the first suit barred a subsequent suit for the rent of the other fasli despite separate muchilikas. The Court cited this as an example supporting the proposition that separate documents or particulars may not prevent the bar of O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 when the same parties and related claims are involved.
Hari Narain Banerjee v. (Shama Sundar Dassi) Kusum Kumari Dasi Held that a subsequent mortgagee who paid a prior mortgage debt under Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act could not bring a separate suit for that payment after having already brought a suit on his own mortgage; he should have included the amount paid in his first suit. The Court cited this to illustrate that where related monetary obligations arise, a party must include such claims in a primary suit rather than bringing a separate subsequent suit — analogous to the bar under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3.
Riayatullah Khan v. Nasir Khan Held that where two houses purchased under the same deed were alleged to have been ousted on different occasions, each ouster gave rise to a separate cause of action and Sections 42 and 43 (O. 2, R. 2) of the CPC did not bar the second suit. The Court cited this authority to show that where dispossessions occurred on different occasions, separate suits may not be barred; used as a counter-example to the bar and in assessing whether the alleged trespasses in the present matter occurred on different occasions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in stages:

  1. On appellate scope: The Court stated it could not go behind findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court in a second appeal, and that on the findings made there was no question of limitation. Thus, the Court would not re-evaluate settled factual findings except as permitted by the law of second appeals.
  2. On the auction-purchase objection: The Court observed that the contention that a Court-auction purchase by the decree-holder's agent without obtaining the Court's permission under Section 294 CPC could not confer title had already been argued and overruled in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911; the objection had been held to be available only to parties to the suit and not to a stranger like defendant 1. The Court treated that point as resolved against defendant 1.
  3. On the bar under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3: The Court identified the central dispute as whether the plaintiff's subsequent suit for plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) was barred by the earlier suit (Original Suit No. 100 of 1908) under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 of the CPC. The Court examined factual findings concerning when the plaintiff's right to possession arose (on Ammani Ammal's death in January 1905) and the timing of defendant 1's acts of alleged trespass on item 1 and on the other plots. The lower courts had not made a clear finding whether the trespasses were part of the same transaction or occurred on the same or different dates; the District Munsif had taken the view that differences in evidence and the presence of other defendants meant O. 2, R. 2 did not bar the suit, but the High Court observed that whether two trespasses constitute the same transaction is a crucial, fact-dependent question.
  4. On application of authorities: The Court reviewed authority (notably Manonmani Ammal v. Vythialinga Naicker) explaining that the scope of "cause of action" under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 is broader and fact-sensitive; it also considered decisions (Gangi, Shanmugam Pillai, Hari Narain Banerjee, Riayatullah Khan) that illustrate different outcomes depending on whether defendants or properties differ or whether dispossessions occurred on different occasions. The Court distilled from these authorities that, when the title and the trespasser are the same in both suits, the decisive question is whether the two trespasses happened on or about the same time and were part of the same transaction so they may be treated as one cause of action.
  5. On need for factual determination and remand: Because the lower courts had not properly considered whether the trespass on item 1 formed part of the same transaction as the trespass on the disputed plots — and because the existing findings left doubt about the relevant dates — the High Court considered it proper to allow both parties to adduce fresh evidence on this precise factual issue. The Court therefore remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court to decide the specific issue identifying whether defendant 1's taking possession of item 1 formed part of the same transaction as her taking possession of plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h), and to find when those acts took place.
  6. On subsequent return of finding and final decision: The lower appellate Court (temporary Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly) returned a finding that the two acts did not form part of the same transaction, locating the possession of the disputed plots around 1900 and the possession of item 1 around January 1905. The High Court accepted that returned finding and dismissed the second appeal with costs.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court accepted the lower appellate Court's returned finding that defendant 1's taking wrongful possession of item 1 did not form part of the same transaction as her taking wrongful possession of plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h), and the second appeal was dismissed with costs.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The second appeal was dismissed and the finding that the alleged trespasses occurred at different times (the disputed plots about 1900 and item 1 about January 1905) stands.
  • Procedure: The High Court's earlier procedural direction (before the returned finding) required the record's return within eight weeks and allowed ten days for filing objections; the Court permitted both parties to adduce fresh evidence on the specific factual issue when remanding.
  • No new broad precedent: The judgment is fact-specific and the opinion does not purport to lay down any novel general principle beyond applying and distinguishing the cited authorities on when O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 applies; the outcome turns on the factual determination whether trespasses formed part of the same transaction.

End of summary based exclusively on the provided opinion text.

Show full summary ...

    Jagathamba Ammal v. Ramaswami Iyengar

    JUDGMENT

    1. We cannot go in second appeal behind the findings of fact in the lower appellate Court's judgment. On those findings no question of limitation arises. As regards the contention that the purchase in Court auction by the decree-holder's agent was without obtaining the permission of the Court under Section 294 of the CPC, and cannot therefore be recognized as conferring any title on the Court auction-purchaser or his principal, this question was argued before this Court in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1911, and the above contention waslover-ruled with the remark that “this was an objection that could be raised only by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger like defendant 1” (who was the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1263 of 1913 and is also the appellant; in the second appeal before us).

    2. The only other question of law remaining to be considered in this second Appeal is whether O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3 of the CPC, (S. 43 of the old Code) bars the plaintiff from bringing the present suit in respect of the plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h). The plaintiffs' right to possession arose on the death of one Ammani Ammal in January 1905. Defendant 1 trespassed on a land which might be called item 1 and also on the plaint plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) after January 1905. There is nothing to show that the trespass on item 1 was on the very same date as the trespass on plaint plots (o), (e), (f), (g) and (h). Nor is there anything to show that trespass was on a different date or on a different occasion. The learned District Munsif evidently thought that the question whether the trespass on item 1 by defendant 1 was part of the same transaction as the trespass on plaint plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h), had little bearing on the decision of the question whether the present suit is barred by the plaintiff's failure to include these plots along with item 1 when the plaintiff brought a previous suit, Original Suit No. 100 of 1908, against this same defendant 1 for recovery of item 1 alone. In para. 10 of his judgment the learned District Munsif has argued that the mere fact that item 1 and the lands now in dispute passed to the plaintiff under the same title, did not make the cause of action in Suit No. 100 of 1908 and the, cause of action in the present Suit No. 198 of 1910 the same and that fact by itself did not oblige the plaintiff to file a single action for the recovery of both item 1 and the disputed plots. The District Munsif held that because the evidence relating to the possession and enjoyment of the plaint lands and the title set up thereto by the defendants should necessarily be different from the evidence and title relating to land item 1, that because defendants 2 and 3 in this suit are strangers to Original Suit No. 100 of 1908 and that because defendant 3 in this suit claimed plots (b) and (d) on an independent title, O. 2, R. 2, did not bar the present suit. It has been held in Manonmani Ammal v. Vythialinga Naicker(1) that though the bundle of facts which have to be proved by the plaintiff in one suit to establish his claim in that suit may not be identical in all respects with the bundle of facts which have to be proved by him in a later suit, the cause of action for the two suits within the meaning of that expression in O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3, may be the same for both suits. As said in that same: case “each case must depend upon its own facts, and it is often a difficult matter to decide what facts form part of a particular cause of action.” “It is not always easy to decide whether a particular fact is of such importance as a part of the cause of action or is such that it must be relegated into the category of the evidence by which the facts making up the cause of action are to be established.” The illustration to O. 2, R. 2, also shows that the phrase “cause of action” is used in Cl. 3, O. 2, R. 2, in a more comprehensive sense that it is used in S. 17. In the above case in Manonmani Ammal v. Vithialinga Naicker, Miller and Tyabji, JJ., held that where a person by two separate transactions, one after the other, acquired the shares of two out of five members of an undivided Hindu family he had but one cause of action (after the date of the second purchase, we think, should be added) against the family to have his 2/5th share marked out and put in his possession and that the first suit brought to recover 1/5th share acquired from one brother barred his subsequent suit to recover the other brother's share. Miller, J., in his judgment distinguished the case Kuppuswamy Aiyar v. Subramania Aiyar(2) on the ground that “differeut and separate parcels of land were in question” in the two suits referred to in that case.

    3. We think that case might be distinguished also on the ground that the two suits in that case were brought, not against a joint Hindu family for partition of the same block of land [as in Manonmani Ammal v. Vythialinga Naicker], but by an ordinary cosharer against his other co-sharers for partition of different plots of land held in common. In Gangi v. Ramaswami(3), it was held that if the defendants are different and the properties in the suits are different, O. 2, R. 2, is no bar to the second suit, though the plaintiff and the title relied on by the plaintiff be the same in the two suits. In the present case, defendant 1 is the principal defendant in both the suits so far as the properties item 1 and items (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are concerned and the mere fact that the tenants of the two sets of properties holding under defendant 1 are different or that the present suit includes properties which are not claimed by defendant 1 cannot prevent the bar under O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3, from having its effect so far as plots (c) and (e) to (h) are concerned. In Shanmugam Pillai…(Petitioner), v. Syed Gulam Ghose…(), .*(4) it was held that though the landholder had obtained two separate muchilikas for faslis 1305 and 1306 from the same tenant for the same holding, his first suit for the rent of fasli 1306, based on the separate muchilka of 1306 barred his subsequent suit for the rent of fasli 1305 based on the different muchilika of 1305. In Hari Narain Banerjee v. (Shama Sundar Dassi) Kusum Kumari Dasi(5) it was held that a subsequent mortgagee who had paid up a prior mortgage-debt under Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act, could not bring a separate suit for the money so paid by him to the prior mortgagee after he had brought a suit on his own mortgage for the mortgage money due to himself, as he ought to have added the amount he paid under Section 74 of the Transfer of Property Act, to his claim on his own mortgage-bond in the first suit. In Riayatullah Khan Minor…(Defendant); v. Nasir Khan…(Plaintiff).*(6) the facts were as follows: B purchased two houses under the same sale deed in 1876. In 1880 he sued for possession of one of the houses alleging that he had been dispossessed by the ancestor of the defendant. Subsequently he brought a second suit for possession of the other house against the same defendant alleging that at the time when he instituted the former, suit he had already been dispossessed of the house now in question and by the same person. It was held that though the plaintiff's title to both the houses rested on the title acquired by him under the same title deed, yet the cause of action, viz., his ouster from the two houses on different occasions, gave rise to two separate causes of action, which he was not bound to join in the first suit and that Sections 42 and 43 of the CPC, did not bar his second suit.

    4. It seems to us that where the title of plaintiff is the same and the trespasser defendant is the same defendant in both suits, the question whether the second suit is barred by the first depends upon, the answer to the following question, namely, “Did the two trespasses take place on or about the same time and as part of the same transaction so that the two trespasses might be considered (taking a common sense view of the facts) as a single transaction forming one and the same cause of action?” This aspect of the question was not considered by tile District Munsif. The lower appellate Court merely says that the trespass on item 1 by defendant 1 “might have been on a different date” from the trespass on the plots now in dispute. If the trespass on the plaint plots took place after the first Suit No. 100 of 1908, had been brought, O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3, can of course, be no bar to the present suit. The finding in the present suit is vaguely to the effect that defendant 1's possession began after the death of Ammani Ammal, defendant 1's mother-in-law: see para. 12 of the Subordinate Judge's judgment. As Ammani Ammal's death admittedly took place in January 1905 this finding leaves us in doubt whether the trespass took place after or before Original Suit No. 100 of 1908 was brought. The lower Courts however, have both proceeded on the ground that it took place before Original Suit No. 100 of 1908 was brought and have yet held that O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3, does not bar the present suit. The question whether the trespass of defendant 1 on item 1 (which was one of the bundle of facts to be considered by the Court in Original Suit No. 100 of 1908) formed part of the same transaction as the trespass on the disputed plots and whether the trespass took place on or about the same date and in the same cultivation season so that they might be considered as constituting the same cause of action, was not considered properly by either Court. The importance of this question on the applicability of O. 2, R. 2, Cl. 3, seems to have been ignored in the trial of the suit (and it is not surprising that it was so ignored as the question of law is by no means free from doubt and difficulty) and we consider it proper to allow both parties to adduce fresh evidence on the above question and we remand the case to the lower appellate Court for a finding on the following issue:

    Whether defendant 1's taking wrongful possession of item 1 (which was in dispute in the former suit Original Suit No. 100 of 1908) formed part of the same transaction with her taking wrongful possession of the plots (o), (e), (f), (g) and (h) in the present suit, and when anil on what date or dates did the said acts take place?

    5. The time for the return of the finding will be eight weeks from the receipt of the records, and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.

    6. [In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the temporary Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly sub-mitted the following:]

    FINDING

    7. Defendant 1's taking wrongful possession of item 1 (which was in dispute in the former suit, Original Suit No. 100 of 1908) did not form part of the same transaction with her taking wrongful possession of the plots (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) in the present suit, that the former act took place in or about January 1905 and that the latter act took place in or about the year 1900. [This second appeal coming on this day for final hearing after the return of the finding of the lower appellate Court upon the issue referred by this Court for trial, the Court delivered the following.]

    JUDGMENT

    8. We accept the finding and dismiss the second appeal with costs.

    S.N/R.K

    9. Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Jagathamba Ammal v. Ramaswami Iyengar
    (Aug 26, 1914)