Principle Of Res-Judicata Applicable Between Co-Defendants If There Exists Conflict Of Interest Between Them : Supreme Court

Observing that the principle of res judicata is applicable not only between the plaintiff and the defendants but also between the co-defendants, the Supreme Court held that the condition precedent to make the principle of res judicata applicable between the co-defendants is that there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants.

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal stated that the principle of res judicata would not be attracted unless there exists a conflict of interest between the co-defendants.

While explaining the meaning and context of the principle of Res judicata enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Judgment authored by Justice Abhay S Oka upon placing reliance on Govindammal v. Vaidyanathan culled out three conditions that are necessary to be fulfilled in applying the principle of res judicata between the co-defendants.

(i) there must be a conflict of interest between the co-defendants;

(ii) there is necessity to decide the said conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff; and

(iii) there is final decision adjudicating the said conflict.

“Once all these conditions are satisfied, the principle of res judicata can be applied inter se the co-defendants.”, the court said.

In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff was independently claiming rights over 0.30 acres of suit land as part of the Cantonment Board property whereas the Respondent/Cantonment Board, Ramgarh was claiming rights over 2.55 acres of the land which formed part of the Estate of Raja.

The respondent contended that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the principle of res judicata as the rights over the suit property were decided against the plaintiff in an earlier suit filed by Maharani where the appellant and respondent were co-defendants. However, the suit filed by Maharani came to be dismissed simpliciter without adjudication of any rights of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land vis-à-vis the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh.

The Supreme Court observed that since there was no adjudication of the rights of the appellant over the suit property in a suit filed by the Maharani, where the respondent was also a defendant, therefore “the principle of res judicata would not be attracted as the issue in the present suit was neither directly or indirectly in issue in the previous suit and there was no conflict of interest between the co-defendants in the said previous suit which if any never came to be adjudicated upon.”

The Court opined that the right of the plaintiff-appellant to claim the suit land or the right of the Cantonment Board over the 2.55 acres of land settled in its favor never came to be adjudicated in the previous Suit filed by the Maharani, therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant claiming title over the suit land against the Cantonment Board, Ramgarh is not barred under Section 11 CPC.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Goel, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Smriti Prasad, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Goel, Adv. Mrs. S. Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhurima Tatia, AOR

Case Title: HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS. VERSUS CANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Click here to read/download the Judgment