Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs, v. Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors.  has held that if there is a conflict of interest between the co-defendants then the principle of Res Judicata shall be applicable to co-defendants also. 

What was the Background of the Har Narayan Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. Versus Cantonment Board, Ramgarh Cantonment & Ors. Case? 

• In the previous suit, the plaintiff and the defendants of the present suit were codefendants. 
• In the present suit the plaintiff filed a suit claiming the land in the suit. 
  • The plaintiff claimed his rights and possession on the land which was transferred to him by the proprietor Raja by way of Raiyati settlement. 
  • The other piece of the property was given to Cantonment Board by Raja temporarily which was claimed by the board. 
  • The trial court ordered in the favor of the plaintiff. 
• The 1st appeal to the Patna High Court was made by the defendant, who reversed the trial court's order and decreed in favor of the defendant stating that the suit is barred as per the Principle of Res Judicata. 
• The plaintiff filed a 2nd Appeal to the Patna High Court against the defendant, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff and the codefendants in the previous suit were not suited properly. 
  • The claims were not adjudicated, and mere adjudication of Maharani’s rights does not suffice the rights of the defendants. 
  • The High Court dismissed the appeal because there is no substantial question of law that arises in the suit as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC).  
• The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that in the previous suit the plaintiff was claiming the suit land of the present suit while the defendant was claiming his right in the estate of Raja. 
  • It implies that there was no direct or indirect conflict between the parties of the present suit in the previous suit. 
  • Therefore, the Supreme Court held that there should be no applicability of the Principle of Res Judicata as per section 11 of CPC and also referred to the landmark case Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017) to establish the essentials of the principle. 
• It was also noted by the Supreme Court that the rights of the defendants were not adjudicated by the court and only clarity was given on the rights of Maharani in the whole land of the Raja. 
  • Here, it was also said that the disputed land between the plaintiff and the defendant is the subject matter of dispute and not the whole land of Raja.  
  • The Supreme Court also held that there is a substantial question of law in the instant matter as the rights of the parties were not determined in the previous suit. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to in this Case? 

Section 11 of CPC - Res judicata 

• 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. 
• Explanation I: The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.  
• Explanation II: For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.  
• Explanation III: The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.  
• Explanation IV: Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.  
• Explanation V: Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.  
• Explanation VI: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.  
• Explanation VII: The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.  
• Explanation VIII: An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. 

Section 100 of CPC - Second appeal 

• Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.  
• An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.  
• In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.  
• Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.  
• The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question.  
• Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. 

What is the Principle of Res Judicata? 

• This principle simply means that nothing should be adjudicated twice or no subsequent suit should be filed for the same issue which has been already decided by the court. 
• The principle of Res Judicata is based upon three Latin maxims: 
  • Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium: it means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation. 
  • Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Causa: it means that, no man should be vexed for the same reason twice.  
  • Res Judicata Pro Veritate Occipitur: it means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. in case where, there is a conflict in judgment then it leads to embarrassment of judiciary. 

What is Landmark Judgement Based on the Applicability of Principle of Res Judicata on Co defendants? 

• Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan (2017): Three conditions that are necessary to be fulfilled in applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants were laid down this case as: 
  • There must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants; 
  • There is necessity to decide the said conflict to give relief to the plaintiff; and 
  • There is a final decision adjudicating the said conflict.