Earlier Suit Dismissed On Technical Grounds Without Adjudication On Merits Would Not Operate As Res Judicata: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an earlier suit which was dismissed for technical reasons would not operate as Res Judicata.

In this case, the Plaintiff temple filed a suit in 1981 for appointment of the receiver for preparing an inventory of the suit jewellery. This suit was not decided on merits but was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had prayed for mandatory injunction and had not made a prayer for declaration of title. Later, in 1990, the temple filed a suit for declaration of existence of specific endowment in respect of the suit jewellery in favour of the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the right of the deity to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai. The Trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant that the suit for declaration was barred under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Res judicata). The First Appellate Court, held in favour of defendant-appellant and observed that the Temple had omitted to seek a declaration as to the ownership of the suit jewellery and as such the Temple was barred from filing a suit for declaration of the suit jewellery as a specific endowment. In Second appeal filed by the Plaintiff temple, the High Court restored the Trial Court decree and set aside the judgment of First Appellate Court.

Therefore, the issue raised by the defendant- appellant before the Apex Court was whether the Suit of 1990 was hit by principles of Res Judicata?

The court noted that the suit filed in 1981 for appointment of the receiver for preparing an inventory of the suit jewellery was not decided on merits but was dismissed on the ground that the respondent had prayed for mandatory injunction and had not made a prayer for declaration of title.

"Thus, the suit was dismissed for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the merits of the matter"

The court observed that for res judicata to apply, the earlier suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality. It said

"Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit."

The Court also noted that the defendant-appellant did not place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality. 

"The party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel.", the bench said.

Observing thus, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Also read : Dedication Of Property As Religious Endowment Can Be Inferred From Circumstances ; Express Dedication Or Document Not Required: Supreme Court

Case details

Religious endowment - Dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances - Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes. (Para 20-25)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 11 - Res Judicata - When the suit was dismissed for technical reasons, which decision is not an adjudication on merits of the dispute that would operate as res judicata on the merits of the matter. (Para 32)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 11 - Res Judicata - For res judicata to apply, the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Further, the suit should have been decided on merits and the decision should have attained finality - Where the former suit is dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of the plaintiff's appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate or letter of administration or succession certificate when the same is required by law to entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or for failure to furnish security for costs, or on the ground of improper valuation, or for failure to pay additional court fee on a plaint which was undervalued, or for want of cause of action, or on the ground that it is premature and the dismissal is confirmed in appeal (if any), the decision, not being on the merits, would not be res judicata in a subsequent suit. The reason is that the first suit is not decided on merits - Conditions that must be satisfied to constitute a plea of res judicata laid down - Referred to Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (SMT) AIR 1966 SC 1332. (Para 30-31)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 11 - Res Judicata - To succeed and establish a prayer for res judicata, the party taking the said prayer must place on record a copy of the pleadings and the judgments passed, including the appellate judgment which has attained finality. (Para 32)

Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 ; Order II Rule 2 - Constructive Res Judicata - The party claiming and raising the plea of constructive res judicata/Order II Rule 2 of the Code must place on record in evidence the pleadings of the previous suit and establish the identity of the cause of actions, which cannot be established in the absence of record of judgment and decree which is pleaded to operate as estoppel - Referred to Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal AIR 1964 SC 1810. (Para 33)

Pleadings - Decree or direction beyond what was sought cannot be granted - Limits of a court to grant reliefs beyond the prayer and pleadings of the parties discussed - Referred to Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491. (Para 36)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment