L RAM KISHAN DAS Vs. JAGDISHWAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 11-4-1931. In the plaint, the plaintiff gave a declaration required by Section 4, U. P. Debt Redemption Act, that he will not proceed against the land, agricultural produce, or person of the judgment-debtor if a decree is passed in his favour and on that basis claimed that the amount sued for was due to him against the defendant. Prior to the institution of the suit which has given rise to this appeal the defendant had instituted a suit for accounts under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act. In that suit, as a defendant, the present plaintiff whom we shall hereafter call the creditor, had given a declaration under Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, But that declaration was held not to be capable of being given in a suit by a judgment-debtor and was therefore disregarded and it was held that nothing was due to the creditor. In the present suit the Courts below have held that since in the debtor's suit it was found that nothing was due to the creditor, this suit must be dismissed as the finding operates as 'res judicata' in the present suit.

(2.) The only question in this appeal by the creditor is whether the finding in the debtor's suit that no amount was clue operates as 'res judicata' in the present suit. We are of opinion that the finding in the debtor's suit docs not operate as 'res judicata'.

(3.) As already observed the finding in the debtor's suit was given after disregarding the declaration given by the creditor under Section 4, Debt Redemption Act. On that basis it was found that nothing was due to the creditor. In the present case the creditor wants a decree on different facts. He has given a declaration under Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, and seeks a determination of the question as to what amount is due to him upon that basis. The basis of the two suits are entirely different.