A became a tenant of seven lots of coconut grove under B. Annual rental agreed was Rs. 3,600/- to be paid in three instalments. A filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that B with the help of C is trying to cast clouds on his tenancy rights and to dispossess him. The Court found that A had already been dispossessed........Decide giving reasons for your decision, whether the defendant’s plea is sustainable.

Question: A became a tenant of seven lots of coconut grove under B. Annual rental agreed was Rs. 3,600/- to be paid in three instalments. A filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that B with the help of C is trying to cast clouds on his tenancy rights and to dispossess him. The Court found that A had already been dispossessed.
The suit was therefore dismissed on the ground that suit for mere declaration does not lie in view of the prohibition contained in the Specific Relief Act, without seeking the consequential relief of possession. A then filed another suit for possession of the land under his tenancy. The suit was resisted on the ground, inter alia that it is barred by principles of res judicata and also under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. Decide giving reasons for your decision, whether the defendant’s plea is sustainable.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A became a tenant of seven lots of coconut grove under B. Annual rental agreed was Rs. 3,600/- to be paid in three instalments. A filed a suit for declaration and injunction alleging that B with the help of C is trying to cast clouds on his tenancy rights and to dispossess him. The Court found that A had already been dispossessed........Decide giving reasons for your decision, whether the defendant’s plea is sustainable.]

Answer

In the given scenario, A became a tenant of seven lots of coconut grove under B, with an annual rental agreed upon as Rs. 3,600/- to be paid in three installments. A filed a suit seeking a declaration and injunction, claiming that B, with the assistance of C, was attempting to cast clouds on A's tenancy rights and dispossess him. However, the court determined that A had already been dispossessed, leading to the dismissal of the suit as it sought only a declaration without the consequential relief of possession.

Following the dismissal of the first suit, A filed another suit specifically seeking possession of the land under his tenancy. The defendant resisted the second suit, arguing that it was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Now, let's analyze the defendant's pleas and determine their sustainability:

Res judicata: Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the same parties from litigating the same matter that has already been finally decided by a competent court. In this case, the first suit filed by A sought a declaration and injunction regarding the tenancy rights and dispossession. However, the court found that A had already been dispossessed, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. As the second suit filed by A specifically seeks possession of the land, it involves a different cause of action and relief from the first suit. Therefore, the plea of res judicata would not be applicable, as the subject matter of the second suit is distinct from the first suit.

Order 2, Rule 2, CPC: Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC states that a plaintiff should include the whole of their claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit, subject to certain exceptions and provisions. The first suit sought a declaration and injunction regarding the tenancy rights and dispossession in this case. However, the court dismissed the suit on the ground that it did not seek the consequential relief of possession. As the second suit specifically seeks possession of the land under the tenancy, it constitutes a distinct cause of action and relief from the first suit. Therefore, the plea under Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC would also not be sustainable, as the second suit addresses a different aspect of the dispute.

The defendant's pleas of res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2 of the CPC are not sustainable in this case. The dismissal of the first suit seeking a declaration and injunction without the consequential relief of possession does not bar A from filing a second suit specifically seeking possession of the land under the tenancy. The second suit involves a different cause of action and relief, allowing A to pursue his claim for possession separately.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams