RES JUDICATA

 

Res judicata - earlier decision in the injunction suit was decided solely on the basis of the difference in extent in the title deed of the plaintiff and the title deed of the plaintiff's assignor.  Now the direction of the trial court in the present case is to remove the newly constructed Bhajanamadom and handover the vacant plot to the plaintiff.  It is in direct conflict with the earlier finding between the parties by a competent court.  Principle of res judicata is applicable in the case as the question in issue in this case was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit. [Santhi and others Vs. Nanu Gopalan and others, 2002 (1) KLT 220 = 2002 (1) KLJ 46 = ILR 2001(3) Ker  508.  (R. Bhaskaran (J)] 

Rule 15 (3) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX, R.8 - Rent Control Proceeding - Interlocutory application dismissed for default - Second application is maintainable.  [Leelambika Thampi Vs. Nithyanandan, 2002 (2) KLT SN 33 Page No.29 = 2002 (1) KLJ 420,  (K.S.Radhakrishnan & K.A.Mohammed Shafi (JJ)]

Sec. 9 - Actionable nuisance - Panchayat grants sanction to construct factory for the manufacturing cement cavity box -Finding in CRP against the temporary injunction that the suit is maintainable is not barred by res judicata for taking a contention that the suit is not maintainable  in suit - When licence is issued for running a factory and the sanction accorded for the construction of the building are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that can rightly be challenged before the appellate authority . [Thressiamma vs Sebastian Mathew  2001 (3) KLT SN 23, Page No.18 = 2001 (2) KLJ 311 .  (S.Marimuthu (J)]

Sec.11 - The land tribunal found tenancy in favour of the defendant under the Land Reforms Act, and the said decision become final in the heirarchy of the proceeding under the Act.  That finding of the land tribunal will operates as resjudicata in a subsequent civil suit between the parties arising the issue regarding the tenancy and possession the same property. [Anitil Kizhakkinakath Panthalam Valappil Subhadra v. Karuvatil Lakshmi Amma, S.A.No.143 of 1991, dated 4-12-1999.  K.A. Abdul Gafoor (J)]

Sec  11 – Res judicata - Order of joint trial of cases – Is in exercise of the inherent powers of the court and not by virtue of any specific power conferred by the CPC – The court which decided against the joint trial is not bound finally by that order  at later stages so as to preclude its being reconsidered -  Rule of res judicata does not apply as such to such an order -  [Thyvalappil Mohammed Kunhi &another Vs E.K. Janaki Amma &others - C.R.P No. 88/99 C dated 26.10.99 – M.R. Hariharan Nair(J)]

Sec. 11 Decree passed for compromise is not a decision by the Court and therefore, the compromise is not a decision by the Court and therefore the compromise decree does not operate as res judicata.[Susheela vs. Kuttikrishnan.  1998(2) KLT 188.S.Marimuthu (J)]

  Sec. 11 - Earlier suit for injunction dismissed on the ground the identity was not proved. Second suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is not barred by res judicata since the cause of action in both the suits are distinct. [ Kalakurumaban vs Sarojini Amma . 1997(1) KLT 481 = 1997(1) KLJ 357. T.Ramachandran]