- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Isup Ali And Ors. v. Gour Chandra Deb
Concise Analytical Summary of the Provided Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
Two civil suits concerning overlapping disputes over the same land were instituted and tried jointly. The first suit was instituted on 3 July 1917 by Isup Ali, Goja Ali and Basaratulla (sons of Basir Mohammad, Talukaar) against Gour Chandra Deb (son of Nehal Krisha Deb) and his brothers. The second suit was instituted by Gour Chandra Deb and his brothers against Isup Ali and his brothers seeking establishment of their title to the homestead portion of the same property.
The relief in the first suit was valued at Rs. 348 and that in the second at Rs. 200. The primary Court's common judgment resulted in the first suit being dismissed and the second being decreed. The plaintiffs in the first suit (who were defendants in the second) preferred an appeal to the District Judge purporting to appeal against both decrees; the memorandum of appeal attached copies of both decrees but named only Gour Chandra Deb as respondent. Because the memorandum did not name the successful plaintiffs in the second suit (Gour Chandra Deb's co-plaintiffs), it could not be treated as a valid appeal against the decree in the second suit and that decree became final in favour of Gour Chandra Deb and his brothers.
The appeals to the Appellate Court were thus defective in two respects: (1) one appeal was preferred against two distinct decrees in separate suits without an order of consolidation by the Court; and (2) the appeal, insofar as it purported to be an appeal in the second suit, failed to join some of the successful plaintiffs as respondents. The appellants accepted that the appeal to the District Judge was effective only in respect of the decree in the first suit. The District Judge dismissed that appeal on the merits. The present appeal is against the District Judge's decree affirming the primary Court's dismissal in the first suit. The respondent contends that the question in controversy (principally whether one Aleyer Khan was the real or beneficial owner of the property) has already been finally decided in the second suit and is therefore barred by res judicata.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the decree given in the second suit, which became final earlier because it was not validly appealed, operates as res judicata to bar re-litigation of the same question of title in the first suit (now under appeal).
- Whether the appeal to the District Judge, which purported to challenge decrees in two separate suits by a single memorandum (without consolidation and without joining all successful plaintiffs as respondents), was valid in respect of both decrees or only the first suit.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants initially treated the single memorandum as an appeal against both decrees and thus sought relief from the District Judge in respect of both suits.
- They relied upon earlier authorities (specifically Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain and Mariamnissa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi) to support positions that bear on the consequences of jointly tried suits and appeals related thereto.
- Ultimately, the appellants conceded that the appeal to the District Judge must be deemed effective only in respect of the decree in the first suit and that the attempt to appeal the second suit's decree was abortive.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent argued that the decisive question — whether Aleyer Khan was the real or beneficial owner — had already been answered in favour of the plaintiffs in the second suit, and that that decree had become final because it was not validly appealed.
- Accordingly, the respondent maintained that re-examination of that same issue in the present appeal would amount to a collateral attack on the final decree in the second suit and is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kali Dayal v. Nagendra Nath, 54 Ind. Cas. 822 | Illustrates that an appeal, if treated as an appeal in the second suit but defective as to parties, could not be heard because success would be fructuous. | Used to show that the memorandum could not operate as an appeal against the second suit's decree and that such an appeal would be ineffectual. |
| Rakhal Chandra Ternary v. Manmatha Nath Mitter, 10 Ind. Cas. 415 | Established procedure relating to consolidation and appeals when multiple decrees arise. | Quoted to support the proposition that one appeal cannot properly be preferred against two distinct decrees without consolidation. |
| Rakhal Chandra Tewari v. Monmotha Nath, 24 Ind. Cas. 438 | Similar procedural principle on appeals and consolidation. | Relied on as supporting authority for the procedural defect in preferring a single appeal against two separate decrees. |
| Mahabir Prasad v. Bisheshwar Prasad, 42 Ind. Cas. 4241 | Procedural authority on appeals (as cited in the opinion). | Displayed as part of authorities explaining the established procedure for appeals when multiple decrees arise. |
| Balkishan v. Kishan Lal, 11 A. 148 (A.W.N. (1889) 42) | Sets out the principle that "former suit" means a previously decided suit (Section 11 CPC) and that res judicata refers to the time when the judge is called to decide the issue, not to commencement dates. | Adopted as the core exposition of res judicata; the court expressly follows Mahmood, J.'s reasoning and applies it to the facts before it. |
| Chajju v. Sheo Sahai, 10 A. 123 | One of the earlier cases considered by Mahmood, J. in developing the res judicata principle. | Referred to as part of the historical development of the doctrine considered in Balkishan. |
| KashiNath v. Mukhta Prasad, 6 A. 370 | Earlier authority on the scope of res judicata as considered by Mahmood, J. | Noted as part of the judicial reasoning leading to the settled view of res judicata under the Code. |
| Rath Lal v. Chhab Nath, 12 A. 578 | Subsequent case following the same view on res judicata. | Cited as a reaffirmation of the principle that a previously decided suit (whether instituted earlier or later) may operate as a bar. |
| Beni Madho v. Indar Sahai, 3 Ind. Cas. 707 | Support for the view on "former suit" and res judicata. | Relied upon as further authority following the principle in Balkishan. |
| Gurumjammah v. Venkata Krishnama Chetti, 24 M. 350 | Another supporting authority referenced in the context of res judicata. | Quoted among cases that confirm the interpretation of "former suit" and the res judicata rule. |
| Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris (1877) 97 U.S. 244 | Illustrates that a first judgment extinguishes the original cause of action and gives a plaintiff a new right; used by way of authority on the effect of a judgment. | Used to illustrate the general legal principle on extinguishment of the original cause of action by judgment, supporting the res judicata doctrine. |
| Barber v. Morris (1904) 67 L.R.A. 761 | Foreign authority cited regarding finality and extinguishment of causes of action by judgment. | Reinforces the principle cited from Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris. |
| George Henry Hook v. Administrator General of Bengal, 60 Ind. Cas. 631 | Decision of the Judicial Committee confirming application of res judicata to appellate procedure and miscellaneous proceedings. | Relied on to support that the rule applies to first and second Appellate Courts and miscellaneous proceedings; quoted in support of Mahmood, J.'s exposition. |
| Zaharia v. Debi, 7 Ind. Cas. 156 | Allahabad High Court decision reaffirming the res judicata principle. | Cited as one of the repeated reaffirmations by the Allahabad High Court of Mahmood, J.'s view. |
| Dukhni Din v. Ali Asghar, 7 Ind. Cas. 909 | Allahabad decision endorsing the res judicata approach. | Listed among the Allahabad authorities consistent with the rule adopted by the Court. |
| Anant Das v. Udaibhan Pargas, 19 Ind. Cas. 76 | Another reaffirming case from the Allahabad High Court. | Noted as part of the consistent line of cases endorsing the res judicata principle. |
| Ram Faqir v. Bindeshri Singh, 47 Ind. Cas. 837 | Allahabad authority reaffirming the doctrine. | Referenced as further confirmation from the Allahabad Court. |
| Balhari Pande v. Shiva Sampat Pande, 18 A.L.J. 40 | Another supporting authority in the regional jurisprudence. | Included in the list of cases that adopt the same approach to res judicata. |
| Nur Muhammad v. Jamun, 153 P.R. 1890 | Punjab decision cited as adopting a similar view. | Cited to show that the same principle has been adopted outside the Allahabad jurisdiction. |
| Muhammad Jan v. Duli Chand, 74 Ind. Cas. 583 | Punjab decision supporting the approach. | Referenced as an example of the principle being followed in the Punjab. |
| Raman Chetty v. Mutuveerappa Chetty, 17 Ind. Cas. 860 | Burma decision endorsing the rule. | Cited as an example of similar application in Burma. |
| Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial, 29 M. 333 | Decision taking a different view where cross-suits tried together led to the unappealed decree not operating as a bar. | Noted as an exception/different rule; the Court observed this contrasting approach but treated it as inconsistent with the later Code explanations. |
| Asutosh Goswamt v. Upendra Prosad Mitra, 38 Ind. Cas. 17 | Discusses subordinate and principal decrees and their interplay on appeal. | Relied on in reference to the principle that reversal of a principal decree may supersede subordinate decrees; cited in the course of discussion. |
| Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain, 16 C. 233 | Authority cited by the appellants; contained dicta on res judicata and related estoppel issues. | Noted as a case whose dicta cannot be reconciled with later Judicial Committee authority and the present Court's view once Section 11 explanations are considered. |
| Mariamnissa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi, 33 C. 110 | Authority cited by the appellants; some dicta touching on jointly tried suits. | Held to be dependent on its special facts and not reconcilable with the later statutory explanation to Section 11. |
| Sri Raja Rao Venkzta Mahipati ... v. Sri Raja Rao Buchi Sitaya, 8 M. 212 (P.C.) | Judicial Committee decision that an estoppel is binding despite relating to a different property; used to critique Abdul Majid dicta. | Relied on as an authoritative counterweight to the dicta in Abdul Majid; supports the broader rule that estoppel/res judicata may bind notwithstanding differences in property description. |
| Midnapore Zemindary Company v. Nitya Kali Dasi, 24 Ind. Cas. 243 | Shows that when the same question is in controversy in two distinct litigations pending simultaneously, the suit decided earlier operates as res judicata in the later stage of the other. | Applied to demonstrate that a subsequently instituted suit which reaches final decision earlier can operate as res judicata in an earlier-filed suit whose final stage comes later. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in a structured way:
- It first examined the procedural posture of the appeals. The single memorandum purported to appeal both decrees but named only Gour Chandra Deb as respondent; therefore it could not be treated as a valid appeal against the second suit's decree. The appeal was also procedurally defective because one appeal was preferred against two distinct decrees without consolidation and because all successful plaintiffs in the second suit were not joined as respondents. The appellants conceded that the appeal was effective only in respect of the first suit.
- The Court recognized the factual consequence: the decree in the second suit stood final, while an appeal and subsequent second appeal continued only in the first suit.
- Turning to the substantive doctrine, the Court relied principally on the exposition in Balkishan v. Kishan Lal (Mahmood, J.) and related authorities: Explanation I to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, clarifies that "former suit" denotes a suit decided prior to the suit in question, whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. The Court emphasized Mahmood, J.'s point that res judicata's object is to prevent multiplicity of suits and that whether an issue is barred depends on when a competent Court pronounced final judgment on it, not on filing dates.
- The Court surveyed a broad line of supportive decisions (including appellate and provincial decisions) confirming that the res judicata rule applies across first-instance and appellate courts and to miscellaneous proceedings. It acknowledged conflicting authorities (Panchanada Velan; dicta in Abdul Majid and Mariamnissa Bibi) but explained that earlier conflicting dicta were pronounced under the old Code (1882) and before Explanations to Section 11 of the 1908 Code; therefore they are not consistent with the present statutory framework and the later decisions of higher authority (including the Judicial Committee).
- The Court also invoked Midnapore Zemindary Company v. Nitya Kali Dasi to show that a subsequently instituted suit which is decided earlier may operate as res judicata in the earlier suit whose final stage is reached later. On principle and in law (Section 11), there is no escape from this position.
- Applying these doctrines to the present facts, the Court concluded that the decisive question of title (whether Aleyer Khan was the real or beneficial owner) had been finally decided in the second suit in favour of the respondent and his co-plaintiffs; this final decision cannot be collaterally attacked or ignored in the present appeal.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court held that the issue of title in the suit now under appeal is barred by res judicata due to the final decree in the subsequent (second) suit which terminated earlier in favour of the respondent and his co-plaintiffs. The decree in the second suit could have been but has not been challenged and therefore cannot be collaterally attacked.
Implications:
- The practical effect is that the contested question of whether Aleyer Khan was the real or beneficial owner, having been decided in the second suit which is now final, cannot be re-litigated in the first suit or in the present appeal.
- The appeal to the District Judge was effective only in respect of the decree in the first suit; the attempted appeal against the second suit's decree was abortive and that decree remains final and binding on the parties not made respondents in the appeal.
- The opinion places emphasis on the statutory meaning of "former suit" in Section 11 (and its Explanation) and applies established appellate and High Court authority; it does not purport to lay down a novel legal principle beyond confirming the application of res judicata as explained in the cited authorities.
This summary is strictly confined to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not introduce facts or conclusions beyond the text.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for conformation establishment of title by inheritance and adverse possession of land, the suit was instituted on the 3rd July 1917 by Isup Ali, Goja Ali and Basaratulla, sons of Basir Mohammad, Talukaar against Gour Chandra Deb the son of Nehal Krisha Deb and his brothers instituted a suit against Isup Ali arid his brothers for establishment of their title to the homestead portion of the property involved in the first litigation, The relief in the first suit was valued at Rs. 348, and that in the second suit at Rs. 200. The two suits were tried jointly at the desire of the parties, as the disputed land and the causes of action were common to a certain extent. The first suit, was dispraised, while the second was decreed Thereupon the plaintiffs in the first suit who were the defendants in the second suit, preferred an appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was directed against the decrees in both the suits and was valued at Rs. 548. Copies of both the decrees were attached to the memorandum, which, however, set out the name of Cow Chandra Deb alone as the respondent. The memorandum could not, consequently, be treated as a valid Memorandum of Appeal against the decree in the second suit. That decree endured to the benefit of Gourchandra Deb and his brothers, and as the latter were not made parties to the appeal they could not be prejudiced, even it the decree of the primary Court were reversed. Indeed, as pointed out in Kali Dayal v. Nagendra Nath 54 Ind. Cas. 822 : 30 C.L.J. 217 : 24 C.W.N. 44, the appeal, treated as an appeal in the second suit, could not be heard as, even if successful, it would be in fructuous, because such of the plaintiffs as were not brought before the Court as respondents, would still retain the benefit of the decree of the primary Court. The appeal preferred to the lower Appellate Court was, consequently, defective in two respects, namely, first, that, contrary to established procedure, as explained in Rakhal Chandra Ternary v. Manmatha Nath Mitter 10 Ind. Cas. 415 : 15 C.W.N. 994.; Rakhal Chandra Tewari v. Monmotha Nath 24 Ind. Cas. 438 and Mahabir Prasad v. Bisheshwar Prasad 42 Ind. Cas. 4241 : 4 C.L.J. 512, one appeal was preferred, without an order for consolidation by the Court, against two distinct decrees in two separate suits; secondly ,that even treated as otherwise valid, the appeal was defective, in so far as it was intended to be an appeal in the second suit, inasmuch as some of the successful plaintiffs had not been joined as parties respondents, In these circumstances, the appellants in this Court have conceded that the appeal to the District Judge must be deemed to have been an effective appeal; only in respect of the decree in the first suit, and that the attempt to make it an appeal against the decree in the second suit was abortive. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal on the merits. The position thus is that, though there were two suits in the primary Court, decided by a common judgment, an appeal and a second appeal have been preferred in the first suit, while no appeal has been preferred in the second suit, with the result that the decree made therein has become final. On these facts, the respondent in the present appeal, which is directed against the decree of the District Judge made in affirmance of the decree of the primary Court in the first suit, contends that the trial of the question in controversy is barred by res judicata. The substantial matter in dispute in the first suit, as in the second, was, whether one Aleyer Khan was the real or beneficial owner of the property. This question has been answered in favour of the plaintiffs in the second suit, one of whom, as we have seen, is the defendant in the first suit. He is the respondent in this appeal, and he urges that the decision of this fundamental question, which forms the basis of the decree made in favour of himself and his brothers in the second suit, cannot now be reagitated; in other words, he contends that if the matter were now reinvestigated, the decree in the second suit, which has never been directly challenged by way of appeal, would be collaterally attacked and imperilled.
2. The principle applicable to cases of this character was investigated in Balkishan V. Kishan Lal 11 A. 148 : A.W.N. (1889) 42 : 13 Ind. Jur. 309 : 6 Ind.Dec. (N.S.) 523 by Mahmood, J. who had considered the matter also in his earlier judgments in Chajju v. Sheo Sahai 10. A. 123 : A.W.N. (1887) 42 : 301 : 6 Ind. Dec.(N.S.) 83 and KashiNath v. Mukhta Prasad 6 A. 370 : A.W.N. (1884) 119 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 38. At that time, there was some controversy as to the meaning of the expression "former suit," the decision wherein may operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. The doubt has now been set at rest by, Ex plantation I to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which provides that the expression "former suit" denotes a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question, whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. To put the matter tersely, the expression "former suit" means a previously decided suit, and the same rule applies to appeals. This was in fact the view adopted by Mahmood, J, in Balkishan v. Kishan Lal 6 A. 370 : A.W.N. (1884) 119 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 38. and has been subsequently followed; Rath Lal v. Chhab Nath 12 A. 578 : A.W.N. (1890) 183 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1114; Beni Madho v. Indar Sahai 3 Ind. Cas. 707 : 32 A. 67 : 6 A.L.J. 991 and Gurumjam.mah v. Venkata krishnama Chetti 24 M. 350 As Herman puts it in his Commentaries on the Law of Res judicata (Vol. I, p. 126), it is not the priority in the commencement of one action that renders the judgment obtained therein a bar to the recovery of a second judgment in another, but because the first judgment when given, whether in the action commenced first or last, extinguished the original cause of action, and gives to the plaintiff, in lieu thereof, one of a higher nature. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris (1877) 97 U.S. XXIV, 959 : 7 Otto 331; Barber v. Morris (1904) 67 L.R.A. 761 : 132 Fed. 945. (Van Fleet on former Adjudications, Vol. I, p. 87) from this stand point, Mahmood, J., held in Balkishan v. Kishan Lal 11 A. 148 : A.W.N. (1889) 42 : 13 Ind. Jur. 309 : 6 Ind.Dec. (N.S.) 523, that the doctrine of res judicator, so far as it relates to prohibiting the re-trial on an issue, must refer, not to the date of the commencement of the litigation, but to the time when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue; and the rule is not limited to the Courts of first instance, it applies equally to the procedure of the first and second Appellate Courts, and, indeed, even to the miscellaneous proceedings; see the decision of the Judicial Committee in George Henry Hook v. Administrator General of Bengal 60 Ind. cas. 631 : 48 I.A. 187 : 48 C. 499 : 19 A.L.J. 366 : 40 M.L.J. 423 : 29 M.L.T. 336 : (1921) M.W.N. 313 : 33 C.L.J. 405 : 3 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 17 : 23 Bom .L.R. 648 : 25 C.W.N. 915 : 14 L.W. 221 : 48 C. 499 (P.C.). We are in complete agreement with the exposition of the law given by Mahmood, J., in the following passage of his judgment in Balkishan v. Kishan Lal 11 A. 148 : A.W.N. (1889) 42 : 13 Ind. Jur. 309 : 6 Ind.Dec. (N.S.) 523:
It seems to me that the main object of the doctrine of res judicata is to prevent multiplicity of suits and interminable disputes between litigants, ne autem lites im-mortales essent, dum litigantes mortales sunt. This saying of Voet is in accord with the maxims nemo debet bis vexari pro una eteadem causa, and the broader maxim interest reipublicce ut sit finis litium. This being so, the doctrine, so far as it relates to prohibiting the re-trial of an issue, must refer not to the date of the commencement of the litigation, but to the time when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue. For, even in cases where the Judge has commenced the trial of an issue which is also an issue in a pending litigation, a final judgment pronounced mean: while in such previous litigation by a competent Court, (the identity of parties: and other conditions being satisfied) should: operate as res judicata preventing the Judge dealing with the later litigation from adjudicating differently. If this is not done, it seems to me that the evil against which res judicata aims would not be removed and the doctrine itself would be defeated. So far as the justification of this view from the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, is concerned, I may say that the rule contained in Section 13 is; not limited to the Courts of first instance, that it applies equally to the procedure of the first and second Appellate Courts by reason of Sections 582 and 587 respectively, and, indeed, even to miscellaneous proceedings by reason of the general provisions of Section 647 of the Code.
3. This view has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Allahabad High Court; Ram Lal v. Chhab Nath 12 A. 578 : A.W.N. (1890) 183 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1114; Zaharia v. Debi 7 Ind.cas. 156 : 33 A. 511 : 7 A.L.J. 861; Dxkhnl Din v. Ali Asghar 7 Ind. Cas.909 : 33 A. 1511 : 7 A.L.J. 995.; Anant Das v. Udaibhan Pargas 19 Ind. Cas. 76 : 35 A. 187 : 1 A.L.J; Ram Faqir v. Bindeshri Singh 47 Ind. Cas. 837 : 41 A. 54 : 16 A.L.J. 782 and Balhari Pande v. Shiva Sampat Pande 18 A.L.J. 40 A similar view has been adopted in the Punjab and in Burma; Nur Muhammad v. Jamun 153. P.R. 1890; Muhammad Jan v. Duli Chand 74 Ind. cas. 583 : 3 L.L.J. 473 and Raman Chetty v. Mutuveerappa Chetty 17 Ind. cas. 860 : 6 L.B.R. 93 : 5 Bur. L.T. 199 A different rule was, however, adopted in Panchanada Velan v, Vaithinatha Sastrial 29 m. 333 : 16 M.L.J. 63 There, cross-suits between the same parties on the same facts, were tried together, and judgment was given on the same day, but separate decrees were drawn up, and an appeal was preferred against one of the decrees alone. It was ruled that the decree unappealed did not operate as a bar, so as to preclude the Appellate Court from dealing with the decree appealed against, because, it was said, the doctrine of res judicata has no application when the very object of the appeal, in substance, if not the question raised before us, as it merely lays down that where there are subordinate and dependent decrees, the reversal of the principal decree operates as a supersession of the subordinate decree; see Asutosh Goswamt v. Upendra Prosad Mitra 38 Ind. Cas. 17 : 24 C.L.J. 467 : 21 C.W.N. 564 Reliance, however, has been placed by the appellants on the decisions of this Court in Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain 16 C. 233 : 8 Ind. dec. (N.S.) 154; Mariamnlssa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi 33 C. 110 : 10 C.W.N. 934 : 4 C.L.J. 149. The dicta in Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain 16 C. 233 : 8 Ind. dec. (N.S.) 154 cannot be reconciled with the decision of the Judicial Committee in Sri Raja Rao Venkzta Mahipati Gangadhara Rama Rau Raja of Pittapur v. Sri Raja Rao Buchi Sitaya 8 M. 212 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 152 (P.C.), namely, that an estoppel is binding, notwithstanding that the suit which raises it relates to a different property. The decision is further based on the untenable view that the question of res judicata depends upon the state of facts as they exist at the date of the trial in the primary Court. On the other hand, the decision of the majority in Mariamnissa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi 33 C. 110 : 10 C.W.N. 934 : 4 C.L.J. 149. was dependent upon its special facts, although an opinion was expressed that, when two suits have been tried together, either of them cannot be treated as the former suit in relation to the other. This view, as we have seen, cannot be maintained, when Explanation, 1 to Section 11 is taken into account. The substance of the matter, then, is that the dicta in favour of the appellants to be found in the cases of Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain 16 C. 233 : 8 Ind. dec. (N.S.) 154 and. Mariamnissa Bibi v. Joynab Bibi 33 C. 110 : 10 C.W.N. 934 : 4 C.L.J. 149, were pronounced, while the Code of 1882 was in force and before Explanations I and II to Section 11 of the Code of 1908 had been enacted. We cannot further overlook that the decision of this Court in Midnapore Zemindary Company v. Nitya Kali Dasi 24 Ind. Cas. 243, shows that if the same question is in controversy between the same parties in two distinct litigaticns, one after the other, but simultaneously pending, the final decision in the latter suit, if given earlier, operates as res judicata in the earlier suit whose final stage is reached later. The rule of res judicata is, moreover, applicable to all the stages of c. suit, till it is finally terminated and is not confined to Courts of first instance. We are clearly of opinion that, on principle, there is no escape from this position, and Section 11 unquestionably does not authorise a departure there from. The conclusion follows that the decision of the question of title in the suit now under appeal, is barred by the decision in the subsequent suit between the same parties and others, which has terminated earlier in a victory for the present respondent. The decision could have been, but never has be en challenged, and cannot now be collaterally attacked or implicitly ignored.
Alert