KANHAI Vs. VYANKATRAO GUJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the pleader for the appellant in this case, but can see no ground for differing from the view taken by the Judge of the lower appellate Court on the question of res judicata. Reliance has been placed by the pleader for the appellant on the decisions in Moolchand Doulat v. Moolchand Khubchand [1903] 16 C.P. L.R. 42 and in Laxman v. Janoo A.I.R. 1924 Nag. 429, but even on the authority of these decisions, it appears to me that in Suit No 38 of 1922 there was a contest between the two then defendants Kanhaya and Venkat Rao inter se, as is shown by issues 1 and 2 framed in that suit, and that their respective rights were fully adjudicated upon.

(2.) I am aware of the decision in Brojo Behari Mitter v. Kedar Nath Mozumdar [188] 12 Cal. 580, but, for my own part, I prefer to follow the view taken by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Madhevi v. Kelu [1692] 15 Mad. 264. It seems to me that a matter may be res judicata in a subsequent suit, although the parties in such subsequent suit were arrayed as co-defendants in the previous suit, if the matter in dispute in the second suit was 'directly and substantially in issue in the former one. This can undoubtedly be predicated of the circumstances of the present case and, in my opinion, there was undoubtedly a contest inter se between the two present parties as defendants in the previous suit. Their rights were then fully adjudicated upon and the law of res judicata seems to apply proprio vigore and to prevent the matter being reopened now.