N KRISHNA PILLAI Vs. SBT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No error of law. Here, in the course of the trial, the appellant defendant withdrew his contention that he was an agriculturist and suffered a decree on the footing that he was not. There was thus a finding that he was not an agriculturist. He is clearly precluded from putting forward the same contention in execution. The words, "notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract or in any decree or order of court", appearing in S.4(1) of Act 31 of 1958 does not jettison the principle of res judicata with regard to the finding in the suit. The decisions in Sangameswara Iyer v. Dhanalakshmi Bank ( 1963 KLT 11 ) and Varkey v. Parvathi Pillai Amma ( 1963 KLT 679 ) are clearly distinguishable

(2.) Appeal dismissed.