TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata or by Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether, after the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, the Civil Court could continue to decide the tenancy issue in the pending suit or was required to leave that issue to the Mamlatdar.
Issue: Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata or by Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The earlier suit failed on a technical ground because a mere declaration and injunction could not be granted once possession had already been lost. The question whether the plaintiff was a lessee had not been finally adjudicated against him. The subsequent suit rested on a distinct cause of action, namely alleged wrongful dispossession and a claim for restoration of possession, and not merely on the apprehension of dispossession that underlay the earlier suit. The doctrine of res judicata requires that the very matter must have been directly and substantially in issue and finally decided, while Order 2 Rule 2(3) bars a later suit only where reliefs arising from the same cause of action were omitted in the earlier proceeding.
Conclusion: The second suit was not barred by res judicata or by Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue: Whether, after the Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman & Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, the Civil Court could continue to decide the tenancy issue in the pending suit or was required to leave that issue to the Mamlatdar.
Analysis: The amended tenancy law vested questions as to tenancy and deemed tenancy in the Mamlatdar and expressly barred civil court jurisdiction over matters required to be settled under the Act. The amendment applied to pending suits as well, because jurisdiction must be tested at the time the court is called upon to grant relief. Where a civil suit is already pending and a tenancy plea arises, the proper course is not straight dismissal of the suit. If the issue falls within the exclusive domain of the special forum, the civil court should have the matter determined by that forum and proceed according to the result. If the special forum rejects the tenancy plea, the civil court may proceed; if it accepts it, the suit must fail. Where the entire remedy lies under the Act, the procedure analogous to return of plaint may be followed.
Conclusion: The tenancy issue could not be decided on merits by the Civil Court after the amendment and had to be dealt with in the manner indicated by the Court through the statutory forum.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the matter was sent back so that the tenancy issue could be handled in accordance with the appropriate statutory procedure before further relief was considered.
Ratio Decidendi: A pending civil suit is governed by a later statutory ouster of jurisdiction where the statute vests the relevant issue exclusively in a special forum, but the suit should not be dismissed outright if the excluded issue can first be determined by that forum and the civil court can then proceed depending on that determination; a prior suit is not barred by res judicata where the earlier dismissal rested only on a technical ground and the substantive issue was not finally decided.
TaxTMI 
