Res Judicata

Res Judicata

Section 11 of the Code incorporates the doctrine of res judicata. It is also called rule of conclusiveness. 'Res' means dispute or subject matter and 'Judicata' means decided. Thus, res judicata means matter adjudicated. It means that once the matter is finally decided by the court no one can reopen it in a subsequent litigation. Under Roman law it is known as ex captio res judicata which signifies previous or former judgment. Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorijin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 held that principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. Primarily it applies between past litigation and future litigation.

Section 11 provides 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 matter has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.

For example, A sues B for possession of certain properties on the basis of a sale deed in his favour. B impugns the deed as fictitious. The plea is upheld and the suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit for some other properties on the basis of same sale deed is barred as the issue about the fictitious nature of the sale deed was actually in issue in the former suit directly and substantially.

Object: The doctrine of res-judicata is based on the following maxims:

(1) Interest Republicae ut sit finis litium-It is in the interest of State that litigation should not be protracted but finished.

(2) Nemo debt bis vexari pro una et eadem causa-No man ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause.

(3) Res-judicata pro veritate occipitur-A judicial decision must be accepted as correct.

Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Radha Krishnan, (1977) 2 SCC 88 held that principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger interest that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. It is well established that doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 is not exhaustive. 

Condition for application of Section 11

For the purpose of applicability of res-judicata, following conditions must be satisfied:

• The matters directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same, which was directly and substantially (either actually or constructively) in issue in the former suit. [read explanation I, III, IV with this condition]
• The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. [read explanation VI with this condition]
• The parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
• The Court which has decided the former suit must be competent to try the subsequent suit. [read explanation II and IV with this condition]
• The matters directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided in the former suit.

Former suit

'Former suit' means a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question, whether or not it was instituted prior thereto [Explanation 1 to Section 11]. For example, if Suit No. 1 between A and B was instituted on 1" January 2000 and Suit No. 2 between A and B was instituted on 1" January 2001, then in this scenario Suit No. 1 will be previously instituted suit because it was instituted prior in point of time. However, if Suit No. 2 is decided on 1" July 2005 and Suit No. 1 is still pending or is decided subsequent to Suit No.2 then in this scenario Suit No. 2 will be former suit with reference to Suit No. 1 because it is decided prior in point of time. Therefore, for 'previous suit' we will have to look at the date of institution of suit and for 'former suit' we have to look at the date of decision of the suit.

Matter in issue

The expression 'matter in issue' means the rights litigated between the parties, te, the facts on which the right is claimed and the law applicable to the determination of that issue.

Matter constructively in issue or Constructive res judicata: This is provided under Explanation IV to Section 11. According to it a matter will be constructively in issue if it 'might and ought' to have been made a ground of defence or attack in former suit. It is also called 'constructive res judicata

Principle underlying constructive res judicata: According to the doctrine of constructive res judicata, where the parties have had an opportunity of raising a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually raised and decided. Thus, it helps in raising the bar of res judicata by suitably construing the general principles of res judicata.

For example, A sues B to recover damages for breach of contract and obtains a decree in his favour. B cannot afterwards sue A for recession of contract on the ground that it did not fully represent the agreement between the parties since that ground ought to have been taken by him in previous suit as a ground of defence.

Same parties or their privies

The second condition of res judicata is that the former suit must have been a suit between same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. A 'party' is a person whose name appears on the record at the time of decision. For example, A sues B for rent. B contends that A is not the landlord and the suit is dismissed. A subsequent suit by A or by X claiming through A is barred by res-judicata,

Res judicata between co-defendants: Supreme Court in Iftikar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban All, AIR 1974 SC 749 held that matter may be res judicata between co-plaintiffs and co-defendants also if the following conditions are satisfied-

• There must be a conflict of interest between co-plaintiffs and co-defendants;
• It must be necessary to decide such conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff;
• The questions between co-defendants and co-plaintiffs must be finally decided;
• Co-defendants/plaintiffs were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.

Res judicata in Representative Suits [Explanation VI]: A representative suit is an instance where the person suing or sued in representative character represent the parties and hence, a decision in such suit would operate as res-judicata. For the applicability of Explanation VI, following conditions shall be fulfilled:

(a) There must be right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves and other not expressly named in the suit.

(b) The parties not expressly named in the suit must be interested in such right.

(c) The litigation must have been conducted bona fide on behalf of all parties interested.

(d) All the conditions laid down in Order 1 Rule 8 must be strictly complied with.

Res judicata and pro forma defendant: A pro forma defendant is a person against whom no relief is claimed. Person is made party for complete and effective disposal of suit. Since no matter is raised against him and no relief is claimed, therefore, finding does not operate as res judicata against pro forma defendant.

Same Title

The third condition of res judicata is that the parties to the subsequent suit must have litigated under the same title as in the former suit. Same title means same capacity. The test for res judicata is the identity of title in two litigations and not the identity of the subject matter involved in the two cases [Kushal Pal v. Mohan Lal, (1976) 1 SCC 449]. The term 'same title' has nothing to do with the cause of action or subject matter of two suits.

For example, A sues B for title to the property as an heir of C under the customary law. The suit is dismissed. The subsequent suit for title to the property as an heir of C under the personal law is barred.

Competent Court

The further condition of res judicata is that the court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit if brought at the time when first suit was brought. Decision in a previous suit by a court not competent to try the subsequent suit, will not operate as res judicata. Jeevanth v. Hanumantha, AIR 1954 SC 9. Such court must have been either:

(a) a court of exclusive jurisdiction; or

(b) a court of concurrent jurisdiction; or

(c) a court of limited jurisdiction.

Court of exclusive jurisdiction: A plea of res-judicata can be successfully taken in respect of judgments of courts of exclusive jurisdiction like Revenue Courts, Administrative Court, etc.

Court of concurrent jurisdiction: A court of concurrent jurisdiction means concurrent as regards pecurniary limit as well as subject-matter of the suit.

Court of limited jurisdiction: In 1976, Explanation VIII was added in Section 11 which provides that if an issue has been heard and decided by a court of limited jurisdiction competent to decide such issue, such decision would operate as res judicata in subsequent suit notwithstanding that such court was not competent to try subsequent suit in which suit issue was subsequently raised. Supreme Court in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, AIR 1994 SC 152 held that 'court of limited jurisdiction' is wide enough to include the court whose jurisdiction is subject to pecuniary limitation and other cognate expressions. A conjoint and harmonious reading of Section 11 and Explanation VIII results that if an issue which has arisen directly and substantially between the parties or their privies and decided finally by the court of competent jurisdiction, though limited, will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit or proceedings.

Supreme Court in Church of South India Trust Association v. Telugu Church Council, (1996) 2 SCC 520 held that Section 11 read with Explanation VIII envisages that the judgment in a former suit would operate as res judicata, if the court which decided the said suit was competent to try the same by virtue of pecuniary and subject matter jurisdiction. It is not necessary that the court should have territorial jurisdiction to decide the subsequent suit.

Heard and finally decided

The fifth condition for application of res-judicata is that the matter must be heard and finally decided in the former suit, ie, the court has applied its judicial mind on matter in issue between the parties. So, decision shall be on the merits of the case and no res-judicata will be applied in case former suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction or for default of plaintiff's appearance or any other technical defect, etc. [Pandurang Ramachandra v. Shantibai Ramachandra, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 627].