K VENKATRAMAIAH Vs. JALAL BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the- dismissal of his suit for a declaration of his title to Survey No. 838/1, Bodhan and for an injuncticn restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and for demolition of the construction made by them on the suit land, on the ground that it was barred by res judicata, The plaintiff claims to be vendee of one Neeradi Baluga, the owner of the suit property, for valid consideration and to be in possesion and enjoyment of the same. As the defendants are interfering with his right to enjoy the suit property, he filed tba suit before the Sub-Court, Nizamabad, The value of the property on the date of the pjaint was stated to be Rs. 8,000/- and for purpose of court fee, it was taken to be Rs. 6,000/- which is three-fourths of the market values The defendants resisted the suit claim contending inter alia that the suit was barrtd by rea judicata in view of the dismissal of O.S.No. 193/59 filed by the father of the plaintiff, by the District Munsiff's Court, Bodhan, Though as many as 6 issues have been framed by the trial court, issue No. 3 relating to the plea of res judicata was tried as a preliminary issue. It reads as follows : "Whether the decree in O.S.No. 193/59 of Munsif court datpd 31-12-1965 against Neeradi Baluga, Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff operates as res-judicata in this suit"

(2.) The trial court, holding that all the requisite conditions specified in section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied and that the decision in the former suit operates as res judicita, dismissed the present suit. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. Mr. P.S. Murthy the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends thit the court below erred in applying section 11 CPC to the case on hand as the decision in the former suit does not bar the present suit on the application of the principle of res judicata According to him, the causes of action for the previous and present suits are different and the subject matter of the two suits is also not one and the same and the District Munsiff's Court, Bodhan which tried the former suit had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Mr. R. Narasimha Reddy. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 9,opposed the claim of the appellant contending inter alia that the present suit could have been tried by the District Munsiff's Court, Bodhan in the year 1959 as the market value of the suit property in the year 1959 was only Rs. 400/- as seen from the plaint and the judgment in the prior suit and, thefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata.

(3.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by res-judicata in view of the dismissal of the suit. O. S. No. 193/59 filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiff in the court of the District Munsif, Bodhan IB order to appreciate the respective contentions of the counsel it is profitable to refer to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is the basis for the principle of reS'judicata Under Section 11 CPC., the court is prohibited from trying any suit or issue if the following ingredients are satisified (1) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the present suit must also have been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit; (2) It must be between either the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title; (3) The former suit must have been instituted in a court which was competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised; (4) Such former suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court.