A brought a suit against B to recover possession of math property claiming it as the heir deceased Mahant. The suit was dismissed because ‘A’ failed to produce a certificate of succession to establish his heirship… Plea of res judicata is raised. Decide.

Question: A brought a suit against B to recover possession of math property claiming it as the heir deceased Mahant. The suit was dismissed because ‘A’ failed to produce a certificate of succession to establish his heirship. ‘A’ brings another suit against ‘B’ claiming the math property as manager of the math property on behalf of the math. Plea of res judicata is raised. Decide. [HP J.S. 2005]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A brought a suit against B to recover possession of math property claiming it as the heir deceased Mahant. The suit was dismissed because ‘A’ failed to produce a certificate of succession to establish his heirship… Plea of res judicata is raised. Decide.]

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). Thus, if the title of both the suits changes, the subsequent suit would not be barred by res judicata.

In the case of Ram Gobinda Dawan & Ors v. Smt.Bhaktabala 1971 AIR 664, the Supreme Court held 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.

In the given question, A brought the previous suit against ‘B’ to recover possession of math property as an heir of deceased mahant whereas he brings the second suit for the same properties as manager of the math property on behalf of the math.

Thus, in both the suits ‘A ‘is litigating under different titles or that is to say in different capacities. Hence, the plea of res judicata raised by defendant B is not maintainable.

In other words, it can be said that second suit by ‘A ‘is not barred by the principle of res judicata as one of the most important conditions for the application of ‘res judicata ‘i.e., parties in prior and subsequent suits must be litigating under the same title is not satisfied. 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