SHANMUGHASUNDARAM Vs. JANAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O. S No. 294 of 1972, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet, is the petitioner herein. The suit having been filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the cultivating tenant of the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in order to restrain them from in any way interfering with the peace full possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. Apart from various other contentions, the first defendant put forth the contention that the suit claim is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in O.S. 919 of 1970, on the file of the Court below, and as such the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court framed as many as six issues and took up for decision, as a preliminary issue, issue No. 1, as to whether the suit is barred by res judicata. The trial Court after elaborately discussing the facts of the case, gave the finding that the suit is not barred by res judicata. Aggrieved by the said decision, the first defendant has preferred the present civil revision petition.

(2.) IT is clear from the facts of the case that the plaintiff had filed O.S. 919 of 1970 to get himself declared as the cultivating tenant and for consequential relief. In the suit, a compromise was effected between the parties and the plaintiff agreed to vacate the suit land within six months from the date of the compromise if the defendant paid him a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards the cultivation expenses. Since the compromise did not come into effect due to the failure of the first defendant to pay the agreed amount, the plaintiff continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenant. In view of this, the first defendant raised the plea of res judicata.

(3.) SRI T. Rangaswami Iyengar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the doctrine of Estoppel by res judicata will apply to the facts of the present case. In support of his contention, he cited the decisions in Subbathal v. Kittammal, (1971) 1 Mad LJ 293 and Girjanand v. Bhagwan, AIR 1967 Pat 101. I have been taken through the judgments in those citations. The facts in those decisions are not similar to those in the present one. In the present case, no written statement was filed by the first defendant in O.S. 919 of 1970 apart from the fact of that suit having been dismissed as settled out of court. Such is not the case in the above two decisions.