GOVINDA BHAT Vs. SHAM BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 3 to 6 who lost the suit concurrently before the Courts below are the appellants in this case. The only dispute in the suit was with respect to the price payable for arecanuts.

(2.) It is an admitted case that as per Ext. A1 partition deed the branch of defendants were liable to pay every year 84 maunds of dried arecanuts. This payment has to be effected by 'C' sharers to the partition deed to the branch of the first plaintiff and it was meant for equalisation of shares. This is not in dispute. There were several suits in the past with respect to the payment and the rate of payment. Few of the suits came to this Court and this Court rendered judgment in S. A. Nos. 617/72 and 168/70. The latter one was in respect of a suit of the year 1966. It is contended by the appellant that in the said Second Appeals this Court had rendered judgments directing that the price payable in terms of Ext. A1 partition deed has to be reckoned on the basis of the market rate prevailing in the locality where the property is situated. Inspite of that the Trial Court and the appellate court in the impugned judgments had taken a different yard stick. That is illegal. The suit was hit by res judicata based on the said judgments between the parties and they cannot claim other than the rate prevailing in the locality. Therefore a substantial question of law centred around the principles of res judicata is raised in this Second Appeal. It is contended that when there are binding decision between the parties, the Courts below went wrong in relying on the documents produced by the plaintiff as to compute the price payable to them.

(3.) According to me it is not a question of substantial nature to invite interference under S.100 of the CPC. There arise no res judicata in respect of price of an article, even if in an earlier suit between the parties it had been found that a particular article did have a particular price. That will not act as res judicata, because on a later stage, because of the market fluctuations and due to innovative technologies in the field of production, the price may vary in either direction. Then parties to the said litigation will have to pay varied price.