When Appeal Against Decree In A Suit Decided By Common Judgment Is Disposed, Principle Of Res Judicata Applies To Other Decrees: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court has held that when two or more suits have been disposed of by a common judgement, a party for one of the suits cannot prefer an appeal against the common judgment if appeal in any other suit decided in that common judgment is already disposed. The Court held that such subsequent appeals are barred by the principle of res judicata contained in Section 11 of Civil...
The Kerala High Court has held that when two or more suits have been disposed of by a common judgement, a party for one of the suits cannot prefer an appeal against the common judgment if appeal in any other suit decided in that common judgment is already disposed.
The Court held that such subsequent appeals are barred by the principle of res judicata contained in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code.
Justice M . A. Abdul Hakhim observed:
“If such subsequent appeals are allowed, it is against the principle of res judicata, and it would be against the very purpose for which the said principle evolved, namely, the finality of the proceedings. The parties would be able to prolong the litigation and re-agitate the matter again and again, one after the other.”
The Court held that a party can file an appeal only before the disposal of appeal filed by parties to the other suit
Background of the Case
A suit OS 1132/2024 was filed in the name of Karikode Naduvilehtedam Bhagavathi Mariamman Temple and The Kerala Viswabrahmana Samooham, a society which is claimed to be managing the temple. According to the petitioners, they took possession of the 2.5 cents of land which consisted of a temple dedicated by Sri Mani and Smt. Lakshmi Ammal. They petitioners submitted that after they took over the possession, they used to conduct poojas and other religious ceremonies there. They claimed absolute title and ownership over the property through adverse possession and limitation. They filed the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction against the 4 children of Lakshmi Ammal and against Mani. The 4 children of Lakshmi Ammal countered the claim by saying that they got title and possession of the property as per the document executed by Lakshmi Ammal.
Meanwhile, one of the children filed a suit OS No 1323/2015 against the temple and its management society seeking a declaration of title and prohibitory permanent injunction with respect to a property of 4.45 cents which included the 2.5 cents which was in dispute in the other suit.
Both these suits were jointly tried by the Additional Munsiff Court – I, Ernakulam. Both these suits were disposed by a common judgment. OS No 1132/2015 was dismissed saying that the suit framed in the name of the Temple is not maintainable and the society was not proved to be the administrative body of the temple. OS 1323/2015 was dismissed saying that the plaintiff therein failed to prove exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property.
The plaintiffs in OS 1132/2015 filed an appeal before the Additional District Court- VII. The Court allowed the appeal in part by granting permanent prohibitory order against the defendants.
Against this order of the appellate court, the four children of Lakshmi Ammal filed an appeal before the High Court. The respondents in the second appeal – the temple and the society – contended the maintainability of second appeal saying that since the appellants herein have not filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in OS 1323/ 2015, they cannot file a second appeal against the judgment in OS 1132/2015.
The appellants submitted they have already filed an appeal against the decree in OS 1323/ 2015 before the District Court along with an application for condoning the delay. They argued that the Appeal will either be dismissed in view of the relief given by the Appellate Court to the temple and the society. Or else, the appellants claimed that the suit will be dismissed for delay. The appellants claimed that either way, once the suit is dismissed the appellants can maintain another second appeal before the High Court and High Court can consider the matter on merits.
The Court held that it is well settled principle that when more than one suit is disposed of by common judgment, and decree in only one suit is appealed, the principle of res judicata will apply. The Court held that the present appeal before the High Court is not maintainable, if the decision in OS 1323/2015 is not appealed. The Court further held that the appeal filed against the judgment in OS 1323/2015 before the District Court is not maintainable as it was filed after the appeal in OS 1132/ 2015 was disposed of.
"A party has no right to maintain an appeal against the judgment and decree in a suit which is disposed of by a common judgment along with other suits after disposal of appeal/s from the judgment/s and decree/s in the other suit/s disposed of as per the very same common judgment."
Accordingly, the Court held that this Second Appeal is not maintainable.
Case No: RSA No. 117 of 2024
Case Title: N. V. Chandran and Others v Karikode Naduvilethadam Bhagavathi Mariamman Temple and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 669