Skip to content


Latchanna Vs. Saravayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad164
AppellantLatchanna
RespondentSaravayya and ors.
Cases ReferredChandu v. Kunhamed I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 13, explanation 5--res judicata between defendants. - .....defendant and his other co-sharers must be held as claiming under the plaintiff in the previous suit by explanation y of section 13 of the code of civil procedure. the case now before me is on all fours with that case. the parties to this suit were co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were all ex parte, the land in question was claimed by the then plaintiff as part of the agraharam land which was liable for redistribution among him and the defendants who are other agraharamdars and his co-sharers. it was the first defendant who claimed the land in question as his inam in execution; but his claim was disallowed under section 244. upon these facts it is clear that the other co-defendants who were co-sharers in the agraharam with the plaintiff in the previous suit must be.....
Judgment:

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendant's claim to the land in dispute as his inam is res judicata. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 7 of his judgment. It is observed by him that as between the plaintiff and the defendants in the previous suit including plaintiff and first defendant the question is certainly res judicata. Though the plaintiff and defendants in the present suit wore merely co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were ex parte and there was no contest between them, yet my decision in this case must depend on explanation V of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held with reference to that explanation in Chandu v. Kunhamed I.L.R. 14 Mad. 324 that though the first defendant in that case under whom the then plaintiff claimed was ex parte in the previous suit and the title of the second defendant cannot, therefore, be said to have been actively contested between the then first and second defendants in the previous suit, yet the first defendant and his other co-sharers must be held as claiming under the plaintiff in the previous suit by explanation Y of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case now before me is on all fours with that case. The parties to this suit were co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were all ex parte, the land in question was claimed by the then plaintiff as part of the agraharam land which was liable for redistribution among him and the defendants who are other agraharamdars and his co-sharers. It was the first defendant who claimed the land in question as his inam in execution; but his claim was disallowed under Section 244. Upon these facts it is clear that the other co-defendants who were co-sharers in the agraharam with the plaintiff in the previous suit must be taken as claiming under him as he claimed the land as common to himself and other agraharamdars and as such partible amongst them. The principle on which this explanation rests is that when an adjudication is necessary to give the appropriate relief to the plaintiff in the prior suit, the adjudication is res judicata, even as between co-defendants when the right asserted by the plaintiff and decided in the previous suit was one so asserted and decided as common to himself and others.

2. The order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the decision of the District Munsif restored. Respondents will pay appellant's costs both in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //