1920 (10) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Court clarifies estoppel by judgment, emphasizes Indian Evidence Act & Civil Procedure Code. Plaintiff's title rights affirmed.

The court held that the previous judgment, not being between the same parties, does not estop the plaintiff from setting up a special usage in the present ... - Issues Involved:1. Estoppel and res judicata2. Relevance and conclusiveness of judgments3. Application of Sections 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act4. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure CodeDetailed Analysis:1. Estoppel and Res Judicata:The primary issue was whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the current suit against the Government to recover emoluments attached to the office of Muttawalli due to the dismissal of a previous suit. The previous suit was dismissed by the High Court, which held that the plaintiff had no title to the office. The plaintiff now alleges that the office is descendible by usage to the nearest qualified male heir. The defendant contends that the decree in the previous suit bars the present suit.2. Relevance and Conclusiveness of Judgments:The judgment explores the principles of estoppel and the relevance of previous judgments under Indian law, particularly Sections 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is explained that in England, a judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point is conclusive upon the same matter between the same parties. In India, Section 40 of the Evidence Act makes a previous judgment relevant on whether it by law prevents the court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial. Section 41 makes certain judgments conclusive evidence of certain matters, while Section 42 states that judgments relating to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry are not conclusive proof of what they state.3. Application of Sections 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act:The court emphasized that Sections 40-44 of the Indian Evidence Act are exhaustive regarding the relevance of judgments. Section 40 makes a previous judgment relevant to the question of whether it prevents the court from taking cognizance of a suit. Section 41 deals with judgments in rem and makes them conclusive proof of certain matters. Section 42 states that judgments relating to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry are not conclusive proof. Section 43 declares that all other judgments are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment is a fact in issue or relevant under some other provision of the Act. Section 44 allows a party to show that any judgment relevant under Sections 40-42 was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it or was obtained by fraud or collusion.4. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code:The court discussed the application of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with res judicata. Section 11 bars the trial of a suit or issue which has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they claim. The court highlighted that the essence of a code is to be exhaustive on matters in respect of which it declares the law, and it is not the province of a judge to disregard or go outside the letter of the enactment. The court concluded that judgments not between the same parties or their privies cannot be used to bar the trial of a suit or issue under Section 11.Conclusion:The court held that the previous judgment, not being between the same parties, does not estop the plaintiff from setting up a special usage in the present suit against the defendant, who was not a party to the previous suit. The court overruled the decisions in Srinivasa Iyengar v. Arayar Srinivasa Iyengar and Ramamurthi Dhora v. Secretary of State for India in Council, which extended the principle of estoppel by judgment beyond the limits of the Indian Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code are exhaustive and preclude the reception of the American rule of estoppel by judgment in India. The court answered the question in the affirmative, allowing the plaintiff to establish his title against the Government.