SAMAVEDAM SARANGAPANI AYYANGAR Vs. KANDALA VENKATA NARASIMHACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, claiming to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Narasimhacharyulu deceased, sued for possession of 2 1/2 acres of mam lands with mesne profits from the first defendant, an alienee of the said lands from the daughter of Narasimhacnaryulu. The last male owner died in 1870 leaving a widow who died in 1920, and a daughter who died in 1942. The daughter executed a deed of settlement of the suit lands in favour of the 1st defendant on 4-3-1937, valuing the lands at Rs. 1000/-. The deed of settlement proceeded on the footing that Narasimhacharyulu had bequeathed the lands absolutely to his daughter under his will and that she, in her turn, was making a settlement of the lands in favour of the 1st defendant. Even during the lifetime of the daughter, the plaintiff claiming to be the presumptive reversioner, filed O. S. No. 84 of 1940 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada for a declaration that the settlement deed executed by the daughter in favour of the 1st defendant was not binding on him and the other reversioners of Narasimhacharyulu beyond the lifetime of the daughter. The suit was valued for purposes of court- fees and jurisdiction in the sum of Rs. 1000/-which was the value of the properties as stated in the deed of settlement. Both the daughter and her alienee, the present 1st defendant, were impleaded as defendants to that suit and they set up the will of Narasimhacharyulu dated 7-4-1869 in and by which the suit lands were bequeathed absolutely to the daughter. They also denied that the plaintiff was a reversioner of Narasimhacharyulu. The suit was tried and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal preferred against the decree by the 1st defendant was dismissed for default. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali for recovery of possession of the lands after the death of the daughter relying upon the previous decision in O. S. No. 84 of 1940 as conclusive of his title to the properties. In the plaint the lands were valued at Rs. 4537-8-0 on the basis of 15 times their net annual rental. A sum of Rs. 952-1-0 was claimed as mesne profits. The total value of the suit being Rs. 5489-9-0, it was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali. The 1st defendant denied the title of the plaintiff as a reversioner of Narasimhacharyulu and asserted that the will of Narasimhacharyulu and the settlement executed by his daughter were true and valid. He also pleaded that the decision in O. S. No. 84 of 1940 was vitiated by a fraud practised on the Court and by false testimony adduced by the plaintiff as regards his relationship to Narasimhacharyulu. Even otherwise, it was stated that the decision could not operate as 'res judicata'.

(2.) The following were among the issues framed by the Court below: "1. Whether the plaintiff is not the nearest reversioner to the late Narasimhacharyulu? 2 Whether the decree of the District Munsif's Court in O. S. No. 84 of 1940 is binding on the 1st defendant and operates as 'res judicata' in this suit?

(3.) Whether the said decree is void for the reasons stated in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the first defendant's written statement? 4 Whether the will dated 7-4-1869 and the gift deed dated 4-3-1937 relied upon by the first defendant are true and valid?" Beyond exhibiting the plaint, the judgment and a pedigree filed in O.S. No. 84 of 1940 the Court below did not take any other evidence. Relying on certain decisions of the Judical Committee and this Court which will be noticed presently, it held that the defence was barred by 'res judicata' and by Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, and decreed the suit. Mr. Dikshitulu for the 1st defendant, here appellant, maintains that neither Section 11, C. P. C. nor any general principles of 'res judicata', nor Section 43 of the Specific Relief. Act barred the defence and that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge to the contrary is erroneous. Mr. B.V. Ramanarasu for the respondent contends that on general principles of 'res judicata', if not on the language of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, the trial of the present suit was barred and that in any case the parties were bound by the decision in O.S. No. 84 of 1940 by virtue of the provisions of Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. Learned counsel have referred roe to a large number of decisions, but I shall riot deal with them individually, for in my opinion, the principles are well settled by the decisions of the Judicial Committee and this Court. Section 11 Civil P. C. is not an exhaustive statement of the doctrine of 'res judicata' and the principle has a wider application than is warranted by the strict language of the section. 'munni Bibi v. TRILOKINATH', 53 All 103 : 58 Ind App 158; 'maung sein done v. ma pan nyun', 10 Rang 332 : 59 Ind App 247. The principle of Section 11 applies to decisions rendered in the exercise of a special jurisdiction conferred by statutes and in proceedings other than a suit as Jot instance, probate proceedings 'Kalipada De v. Dwijapada Das', 57 Ind App 24 : land acquisition proceedings "T.B. Ramchandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao', 45 Mad 320 and 'Mt. Bhagwati v. Mt. Ramkali', ILR (1939) All 460 and proceedings under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 'Balakotayya v. Nagayya', I L R (1946) Mad 366: AIR (33) 1946 Mad 509. The principle of 'res judicata' has also been invoked with reference to decisions given in the course of execution proceedings 'Ram Kirpal v. Rup Kauri', 6 All 269; Shivraj Gopalji v. Ayissa Bi', (1949)-2-Mad L J 493, or the previous stages of the same suit ('Hook v. Administrator General of Bengal', 48 Cal 499).