1954 (4) TMI 59 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court dismisses suit citing res judicata and consent decree principles.

SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE AND ANOTHER Versus BALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE AND OTHERS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. ... - Issues Involved1. Res judicata2. Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code3. Applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts ActDetailed AnalysisRes JudicataThe primary issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the principle of res judicata. The court held that the compromise agreement, which was not found to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or mistake, had the binding force of res judicata. The court emphasized that 'a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum.' The plaintiff's subsequent suit was found to be barred because the compromise had conclusively settled the accounts up to March 31, 1946, and precluded any further claims.Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure CodeThe court also examined whether the plaintiff's claim was barred under Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff had confined his claim to accounts up to March 31, 1946, in the initial suit, thereby implicitly relinquishing his claim for the subsequent period. The court stated, 'if a person omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all reliefs to which he is entitled, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.' The court concluded that the cause of action in both suits was the same-the desire to separate from his brothers and divide the joint family property. Therefore, the subsequent suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2(3).Applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts ActThe court briefly addressed the applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, which deals with the liability of co-owners to account for profits made from joint property. The trial court had applied this principle, treating the defendants as analogous to partners carrying on a partnership after dissolution. However, the Supreme Court found that this issue did not arise because the suit was already barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3). Therefore, the court did not delve deeper into the applicability of Section 90.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by both res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the compromise agreement had conclusively settled the accounts up to March 31, 1946, and precluded any further claims. The applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act was deemed irrelevant given the other findings.