SRIKAKULAM MUNICIPALITY Vs. M V RANGANADHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point arising for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the doctrine of res judicata operates as a bar to the maintainability of these actions. The suits are instituted by the Srikakulam Municipality represented by its Special Officer and Secretary and are laid against the same defendant for recovery of property tax due in respect of several items of property for the ear 1962-63 and 1963-64. The main defence is that the suits are bared because of earlier decisions in respect of the identical claims. Formerly suits were brought by the Municipal Council against the defendant for recovery of arrears of tax levied by it on the very same item of property. The suits related to the three years 1961-61 to 1963-64. The plaintiff succeeded in the suits but the defendant preferred appeals form the decrees of the trial court. The appeals related only to the two later years. The decree in respect of the first year was not the subject-matter of the appeal in any of the cases.

(2.) The appeals were allowed and the suits dismissed on the ground that the sanction of the Municipal Council was not obtained before their institution and consequently they were not maintainable. After the requisite sanction was got, the present batch of suits is laid. The District Munisf rejected the plea of the bar of res judicata and granted decrees in all the suits. But the learned District Judge held that the dismissal of the earlier suits is a decision which bars the present actions. In these revision petitions the view of the Lower Appellate Court is challenged. As the valuation in each of the suits is less than Rs. 1000.00 the plaintiff is questioning the decrees of the lower appellate Court under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.

(3.) The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no hearing and decision of the question whether the assessments in each of the case are recoverable and that the former batch of suits having been thrown our, on a ground unrelated to the merits of the issue directly invoked in the present suits, no bar of res judicata arises. This petition is countered by the learned counsel for the respondents who maintained that the course of action for the earlier set of suits and the present bunch of suits is the same and that the rule that there can only be but one proceedings on foot of the identical cause of action is applicable, notwithstanding that, the dismissal of the suits on the former occasion was due to a defective form of the actions.