A had instituted against B two suits asserting title to a certain property. B contested these claims and also instituted two other suits to establish his title in the same property as against A…. Is the view taken by the High Court correct?

Question : A had instituted against B two suits asserting title to a certain property. B contested these claims and also instituted two other suits to establish his title in the same property as against A. A’s suits were decreed and B’s suits were dismissed. B filed four appeals, two appeals against the decision given in A’s suits and two appeals against the dismissal of his two suits.

It was found that all the four appeals were taken on the file of the High Court but the two appeals filed by B against the decision in the suit instituted by him were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that one was filed beyond time and the other for non-prosecution. At the final hearing, the High Court took the view that the dismissal of B’s two appeals operated as res-judicata in the two appeals filed by B against the decision in A’s suit on the question of title to the property. Is the view taken by the High Court correct?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A had instituted against B two suits asserting title to a certain property. B contested these claims and also instituted two other suits to establish his title in the same property as against A…. Is the view taken by the High Court correct?]

Answer

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states 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 former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

The final condition of res judicata is that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by a court in the former suit. The expression “heard and finally decided” means a matter on which the court has exercised its judicial mind. In other words, in order to be said to be heard and finally decided, the decision in the former suit must have been heard on merits.

In the given question the dismissal of B’s appeal by the High court has the effect of confirming the decision of the Trial court which was given on merits and thus as per Section 11, it amounts to the case being heard and finally decided on the merits whatever may be the grounds of dismissal of the appeal.

The facts in question are based on the landmark case of Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, (1966) 3 SCR 300 wherein it was held that the dismissal of appeals on the ground of limitation and non-prosecution by the High Court and not on merits does not hold ground as that would have been the case when the former suit was dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, the default of plaintiff’s appearance etc. Therefore, the view taken by the High court in the present problem is correct.

---

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
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