An Adjudication Is Conclusive With Respect To Incidental/Connected Subject Matter Of The Litigation: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that the rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question again. "An adjudication is conclusive and final not only a to the actual matters determined but also to every other matter that is incidental or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming within...
The Madras High Court has held that the rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question again.
"An adjudication is conclusive and final not only a to the actual matters determined but also to every other matter that is incidental or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action. Parties can never be permitted to start afresh with a new litigation just because the party entertains some new views or new version. If this is permitted, there will be no end to litigation."
Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the above remarks while considering a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against a judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgement and Decree passed by the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry.
Background
One Sivabakkayam was the owner of the suit schedule property. She executed a donation deed and gave life interest in the property to her daughter Kuppammal and the vested remainder was given absolutely in favour of her grandsons Ramchandran and Kaliaperumal. Ramchandran took a loan from Visalam Chit Funds by mortgaging the entire suit schedule property. As the loan amount could not be repaid, Visalam Chit Funds moved the court and obtained a decree in their favour and later the property was brought for auction sale.
After the auction sale, the said Kuppammal and Kaliaperumal have initiated a series of litigations and have dragged on the litigation for almost 40 years without allowing the bonafide purchaser of the auction property to enjoy the same.
The court considered the following questions of law
- Whether the property can be sold on an auction sale without the life estate holder and one of the vested reminder being a party to the proceeding?
- Whether the purchaser pendente lite who purchased property from Kuppammal can sustain her possession till the life time of Kuppammal and will be entitled to sustain the life interest and title in suit property insofar as share of vested reminder?
- Whether the executor of donation deed intended to vest the property in a particular manner and whether it will be permissible for the courts to rewrite the intention of donor?
- Whether after the auction purchase becomes absolute, the purchasers pendente lite will have right to cause obstruction?
The court held that both Kuppammal and Kaliaperumal never interfered during the time of auction it was after the auction had become final that they have tried to establish title. Moreover, both of them have taken all steps to establish their right in the property and all the suits came to be dismissed. Even if such judgments may be taken to be erroneous, they are binding on Kuppammal and Kaliaperumal. They have thus, lost their rights in the property and no more retain their rights as conferred under the donation deed.
"If Kuppammal and Kaliaperumal are allowed to continuously agitate their rights over the property till they get satisfied on the findings regarding their rights to the property, it will become an endless process. Ultimately what is important is that, the judgment of the competent Court concerning the rights of the parties have reached finality and the reasons given in support of the judgment is not really relevant. The first, second and third substantial questions of law are answered accordingly, against the appellant." the court further stated.
With respect to the rights of the purchasers pendente lite, the court observed that they cannot get any additional right than what their vendor possessed. Order 21 Rule 98(2) r/w Order 21 Rule 102 clearly bars a pendente lite transferee from resisting or obstructing the execution of a decree of the possession of the immoveable property.
The court further went on to impose compensatory cost for the false and vexatious claims and also for causing such a humongous delay in keeping the proceedings pending for more than four decades.
"This Court is reminded of the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 2002 1 SCC 662 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "indeed his difficulties in real and practical sense arise after getting the decree". The Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. Unfortunately, in many cases, the procedure acts like a penal enactment where the litigant is actually punished and made to run from pillar to post to get the fruits of the decree."
Case Name: Cannou Parimala Rani @ Mary Rosay Parimala Rani v. Ilamathy and Ors
Case No: SA No. 234 of 2014 and MP No. 1 of 2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 129