Supreme Court on the Doctrine of Res Judicata

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (since dead) by Lrs. & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 792, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the Doctrine of Res Judicata in detail.

 

SECTION 11 of CPC

 

The facts of the case are not necessary for the purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed. But before adverting any further, let us peruse Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) that enshrines the Doctrine of Res Judicata. Its Chapeau states that: -

 

“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

 

This provision has various explanations appended to it. Thus, in order to understand S. 11 of CPC and res judicata in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Supreme Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court explained that “in order to attract the principles of res judicata, the following ingredients must be fulfilled: -

 

(i) The matter must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit;

(ii) The matter must be heard and finally decided by the Court in the former suit;

(iii) The former suit must be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title; and

(iv) The Court in which the former suit was instituted is competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.”

 

Secondly, the Court observed that “before a plea of res judicata can be given effect, the following conditions must be proved: -

 

(1) that the litigating parties must be the same;

(2) that the subject-matter of the suit also must be identical;

(3) that the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and

(4) that the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

 

Thirdly, the Court noted that “the best method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as they are put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suits, and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgments which operate as res judicata.”

 

Fourthly, the Court cautioned that “plea of res judicata is a restraint on the right of a plaintiff to have an adjudication of his claim. The plea must be clearly established, more particularly where the bar sought is on the basis of constructive res judicata. The plaintiff who is sought to be prevented by the bar of constructive res judicata should have notice about the plea and have an opportunity to put forth his contentions against the same.”

 

Fifthly, the Court clarified that “a question relating to jurisdiction of a court or interpretation of provisions of a statute cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of a court. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a case of decree of nullity. If the court inherently lacks jurisdiction consent cannot confer jurisdiction.”

 

Sixthly, the Court laid down that the issue of res judicata can be decided as a preliminary issue if there has been no material alteration in law or facts since the first suit was decreed and if no mixed question of law or fact is involved.

 

Seventhly, according to the Court, in cases of representative suits that are binding on all the interested parties, the judgment of the court in the first suit would be binding on all the interested parties and would preclude them from instituting another suit on the same issue if it has been conclusively decided.

 

Eighthly, the Court also explained that in a former suit, if an issue was necessary to be decided and was decided, then “it would have to be treated as “directly and substantially” in issue and if it is clear that the judgment was in fact based upon that decision, then it would be res judicata in a latter case.”

 

Ninthly, the Court laid down the twin test that is used for the identification of whether an issue has been conclusively decided in the previous suit as:

 

“A. Whether the adjudication of the issue was ‘necessary’ for deciding on the principle issue (‘the necessity test’); and

 

B. Whether the judgment in the suit is based upon the decision on that issue (‘the essentiality test’).”

 

And lastly, the Court observed that “while a compromise decree in a prior suit will not bar a subsequent suit by virtue of res judicata, the subsequent suit could be barred by estoppel by conduct.”

 

ENDING REMARKS

Therefore, I hope that the nature and the extent of operation of Doctrine of Res Judicata enshrined under Section 11 of CPC is clear by now.