RES JUDICATA:

Section 11:

11. Res judicata.—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.

As for civil proceedings, res judicata will apply as per the conditions under Section 11.

Principle: It means an issue or suit already decided attaining finally should not be reopened

The issue of res judicata has to be first raised by the parties in their pleading thereby enabling
the Court to look into the issue. The plea of res judicata can be considered as a preliminary
issue (before deciding maintainability of the suit).

Will Section 9 affect the applicability of Section 11?

Section 9: Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall (subject to the provisions
herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Does res judicata bar cognizance, or trial of a suit?

If the former Court which tries the suit lacks jurisdiction, would res judicata apply?

A suit was filed in the Court of Jodhpur by A against B. B stated that the plaintiff can’t file suit
as there is an arbitration agreement. The Court didn’t refer the parties to arbitration and decided
the case on its merits. The defendant went on and initiated arbitration proceedings. Res judicata
will not apply.

Athmanathaswami v. Gopalaswami (1965): The SC said that the principles of res judicata
cannot be allowed to defeat the provisions of a legislation which ousters the jurisdiction of a
civil court. Res judicata would apply if it were to do with pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction
(if no objection is raised under Section 21), but not for subject matter jurisdiction.

State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala: Res judicata does not bind the legislature. The
legislature can make a law that is against a decree.
Chief Justice if A.P. v. L. V. A Dikshitulu (1979): The decision of a tribunal suffering from
inherent lack of jurisdiction on a pure question of law/interpretation of statute/constitutional
provisions, cannot be sustained by invoking the doctrine of res judicata.

Is this provision under Section 11 exhaustive?

Lal Chand v. Radha Kishan (1977): The SC held that Section 11 is not exhaustive, and res
judicata can be extended to cases that do not strictly fall under Section 11. For doctrine of res
judicata, there are three essentials: Issues are the same, parties are the same, the proceedings
have attained finality (also means the Court has inherent jurisdiction).

Doctrine will apply irrespective of whether the previous issue was a suit. Cases falling under
Section 11 is a subset of cases where res judicata can apply.

Onus of the proof for the three essentials is upon the defendant. The person who will lose the
case if the point is not proven has the onus of proving the point.: Jaswinder Paul Batra v. Neeru
Batra (2015) Bombay HC

Madras HC: Puttuswamy Gounder v Kannamal (2000): Such a pleading as to res judicata is to
be determined by reference to pleadings, issues, and judgement. Everything is to be considered
including the pleadings of the former suit, not just the final decree of the former proceeding.
In absence of pleadings and judgement proof in former suit res judicata won’t apply.

CONDITIONS OF RES JUDICATA:

1. Identity of matter in issue/Matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
substantially in issue in a former suit:

KMC Kunhiraman Nayar v. CR Naganatha Iyer (1993) SC: In the earlier suit, E, the question
was, whether an oil mill is moveable property? In the later suit, it was instituted for possession
of land and building where the oil mill was situated. Here, matter in issue is different. The fact
that the party did not raise the fact that he was a tenant in the previous suit will not prevent him
from raising it in the next suit. Res judicata will not apply.

When the right in earlier suit was “right to cross a water body” and in the later suit, “right to
take water from the reservoir” Subject matter is the same water body, but matter in issue is
different.

Matter in issue refers to material disputed questions which must be substantially and directly
in the former suit.
Matters in issue

2. Identity of Parties:

Identity of parties: Some people who were parties in the previous suit but not in the subsequent
suit would not affect the application of Section 11: Abdul Razak Mehel v. Samad Kuchary.

Illustration: A was a party in the previous suit. In the subsequent suit, A appointed X person to
represent him. This change wont affect the application of Section 11.

3. Same Title:

The capacity must be the same in both suits. Same capacity refers to same title: Vasudevanand
Saraswati v. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya

Illustration: A runs a trust. A filed a suit in Court X and Court Y. Court X, A files suit as a
trustee. In Court Y A files suit in his individual capacity. Section 11 will not apply as capacity
is not the same.

Illustration: There is a board of directors in a company. The company is dealing with multiple
cases. Different people from the Board of Directors will represent the company but do so in
the same capacity as that of a legal person (i.e., the company).

4. In a Court that is competent to such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been
subsequently raised:

Sheodan v. Dhariyan: SC: The Court in which the former suit was determine, its jurisdiction
to try the subsequent suit must be considered. The Court trying the former suit must have had
the jurisdiction (pecuniary and subject matter) concurring with the Court trying the subsequent
suit.

Trustees of Something:If the previous suit was filed without jurisdiction, it will not have the
effect of res judicata.

Jeevantha v. Hanumantha: SC: “Competent to try such subsequent suit”: Has to be looked not
on the date when the subsequent suit was filed, but when the former suit was filed. If yes, res
judicata will apply if not, no.

Illustration:

Former Suit: Court of MP in 1999

Subsequent Suit: Court of Chhattisgarh in 2001

Both Courts have trial jurisdiction. The property was situated in the district of Jaipur. MP was
divided into MP and Chhattisgarh in November, 2000 and Raipur is now the capital of
Chhattisgarh.

Res judicata will apply as when the former suit was filed MP Court, it had the jurisdiction for
the subsequent suit.

5. Final Decision

EXPLANATIONS:

Explanation I.—The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior
to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Res judicata will apply to the subsequent suit wherein the former suit has been decided first
irrespective of which was filed first.

Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be
determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such
Court.

An appeal shall lie from every decree. It is an appeal of right.

Irrespective of this, res judicata applies to every decree that is in finality. It must be a final
decision and is executable.

Explanation III.—The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by
one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Illustration: The previous suit has three issues, alpha, beta and gama. In the subsequent suit,
only alpha is there. Even in this case, Section 11 will be applicable.

But if in the subsequent suit, there is issue alpha and delta, Section 11 won’t apply. There is a
new issue to be determined. Delta has not been alleged by one party and either denied or
admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other in the former suit.

Explanation IV.—Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or
attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in
issue in such suit.
Explanation V.—Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree,
shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Deemed Refusal:

Illustration: A send a mail to his professor that his internet connectivity is poor, wont be able
to log in and therefore mark him present. The professor marks him absent, without replying to
the mail. This is a deemed refusal.

This is important, as relief not granted in a former suit cannot become a ground to file the
subsequent suit.

Explanation VI.—Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private
right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall,
for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating .

A files a suit in a representative character (A represents n number of people). The right that is
being asked for is common for all the people A represents.

This right can be private or public.

This suit is known as a representative suit.

Now, if one of the people represented by A files for a suit, res judicata will apply and the suit
be barred.

Explanation VII.—The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution
of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as
references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in
such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.

“suit” will be read as “proceedings for execution of the decree”

“issue” shall be read as “question arising in such proceeding”

“former suit” shall be read as “former proceedings for execution of the decree”

Now, the section reads:

No Court shall try any proceedings for execution of the decree or question arising in such
proceeding in which the matter directly and substantially in question arising in such proceeding
has been directly and substantially in question arising in such proceeding in a former
proceedings for execution of the decree 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 proceedings for execution of the decree or the proceedings for execution of
the decree in which such question arising in such proceeding has been subsequently raised, and
has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation VIII. —An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction,
competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit,
notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such
subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Through insertion of Explanation VIII, the applicability of Section 11 has widened, and the
condition of pecuniary jurisdiction to be concurrent has been removed. Error in pecuniary
jurisdiction is only an irregular exercise of jurisdiction and not inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Limited Courts: Can refer to Courts which are limited through pecuniary limbs, or even special
tribunals whose subject matter jurisdiction is limited. Therefore, res judicata will apply for such
tribunals as well and not only civil courts.