CASE COMMENT OF SULOCHANA AMMA V.

NARAYANAN NAIR

6.1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATION

Submitted by:

Kartik Solanki

UID: UG2019-56

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) 3rd Year, 6th Semester

Under the Supervision of:

Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma

Associate Professor of Law

March, 2022

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Cal Calcutta
CPC Civil Procedure Code, 1908
CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
ed. Edition
JILI Journal of the Indian Law Institute
LW Law Weekly
p. Page
pp. Pages
sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reports
v. Versus
vol. Volume
WB West Bengal

LIST OF CASES
S. NO. NAME OF THE CASE PAGE NO.
1. Daryao v. State of U.P. (1962) 1 5
SCR 574
2. Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. 1981 5
CriLJ 1835
3. Nabin Majhi v. Tele Majhi AIR 4
1978 Cal 440
4. Pramode Ranjan Banerjee v. 4
Nirapada Mkondel
MANU/WB/0048/1980
5. Rai Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Rai 5
Beni Madho Rakesh Singh
MANU/PR/0038/1938
 6. Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan 2
Nair AIR 1994 SC 152

LIST OF STATUTES

NAME OF THE STATUTE PAGE NO.

Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 3

1976
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, 3
Transfer of Property Act 1882 6
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviation....................................................................................................................i

List of Cases................................................................................................................................i

List of Statutes...........................................................................................................................ii

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

2. Brief Facts of the Case........................................................................................................2

3. Decision of Lower Courts...................................................................................................3

4. Issue for Consideration.......................................................................................................3

5. Arguments of the Parties.....................................................................................................3

i
 5.1 Arguments Advanced – Appellants.............................................................................3

5.2 Arguments Advanced – Respondents..........................................................................4

6. Decision/Ratio....................................................................................................................4

6.1 Harmonious Interpretation of Explanation VIII and Section 11 of CPC....................4

6.2 Final Judgement...........................................................................................................6

7. Jurisprudence/Conclusion...................................................................................................6

ii
 1. INTRODUCTION
Effective and efficient functioning of courts is really essential for speedy disposal of cases in
the country. The present legal system lays down several principles to ensure that the rules and
doctrines when implemented accordingly leads to increase in judicial efficiency. The
Doctrine of Res Judicata is one of the important doctrines that is basically founded on the
principle of justice, equity and good conscience. 1 This doctrine is embodied under Section 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”).

As per Black’s law Dictionary,2 there are three elements in the afore-stated principle. They
are as follows – a) an earlier decision on the issue, b) a final judgment on the merits, and c)
the involvement of the same parties, or parties in privity with the original parties. The above
principle operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. The principles of Res Judicata are
of universal application as it is based on two age old principles, namely, “interest reipublicae
ut sit fins litium”3 which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end
to litigation and the other principle is “nemo debet his veari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un
aet eademn cause” meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it
appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine is common to all
civilized system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a Court
of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the
questions litigated and should forever set the controversy at rest.4

The Apex Court of India in the instant case of Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair5 had held
that this principle of Res Judicata aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accords
finality to an issue, which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the
same parties or their privies, decided and became final, so that parties are not vexed twice
over and that vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the Court is
saved. It is based on public policy as well as private justice. The Court had held that the
principle would apply, therefore, to all judicial proceedings of the tribunals other than the

1
Sri V. Lakshmanan, “Res Judicata — A Study”, 1 LW (JS) (1995), p. 27; Yogendra Singh, “Principle of Res
Judicata and Writ Proceedings”, 16 JILI (1974), p. 399.
2
Publisher’s Editorial Staff (rev.), Henry Campbell Black, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th ed.1971, p. 1470.
3
Dr. Arpit Haldia, INTEREST REPUBLICAE UT SIT FINIS LITLUM – DOCTRINE OF FINALITY, https://gst-
online.com/learningthelaw-32/, (Visited on February 12, 2022); Anonymous, INTEREST REI PUBLICAE UT SIT
FINIS LITIUM, https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/, (Visited on February 12, 2022).
4
Editor, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/the-doctrine-of-res-
judicata, (Visited on February 15, 2022).
5
AIR 1994 SC 152.

1
civil courts. In this present paper, the researcher seeks to cull out imperative findings from
Sulochana’s Case and also provide a critical analysis of the Judgement.

Citation of the Case - Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair reported in All India Reporter
(SC) in the year 1994 at page 152. The case was decided on 24.09.1993.

Strength of the Bench - The Judgement was delivered by a Division Bench comprising of
Justice K. Ramaswamy and Justice N.P. Singh.

Name of the Advocates – Advocates S. Sukumaran and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellants.
Advocates G. Vishwanathan Iyer, P.K. Pillai and Dileep Pillai for the Respondents.

Legal Provisions Involved – “Section 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.

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.”

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Brief facts of the present case are as follows: Amma executed a settlement deed on May 19,
1961 giving life-estate to her husband Krishnan Nair [hereinafter referred to as “K”], and
vested remainder in favour of the respondent. She died in the year 1971. ‘K’ alienated the
property in 1972 by a registered sale deed in favour of Narayanan Nair and Chennan. The
respondent filed a suit in the District Munsif Court to restrain ‘K’ from alienating the
properties and committing acts of waste. Pending the suit, the appellant purchased the suit
property from Narayanan Nair and Chennan. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated
November 18, 1975 decreed the suit holding that ‘K’ had no right to alienate the lands and
permanent injunction was issued restraining him from committing acts of waste. The appeal
by ‘K’ was dismissed on June 9, 1978.6

6
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair AIR 1994 SC 152, ¶ 2.

2
The appellant, being not a party to the earlier suit, when he was committing acts of waste the
respondent filed a suit against ‘K’ and the appellant for perpetual injunction restraining them
from committing the acts of waste. The suit was decreed on October 22, 1981. Therein the
validity of the appellant’s title was left open. The respondent filed another suit in the Court of
Subordinate Judge for declaration of his title and possession against the appellant. The trial
court by judgment and decree dated October 14,1986, decreed the suit and granted mesne
profits. On appeal, it was confirmed. The second appeal was dismissed. Thus, the appellant
approached the Supreme Court of India.7

3. DECISION OF LOWER COURTS

The concurrent findings recorded by all the courts are that the appellant being successor in
title and interest of ‘K’ is bound by the decrees of lower courts and that he did not acquire
any title of the property. The transfer in his favour was only the life-estate ‘K’ and on his
demise the estate of Kutty Amma stands vested in the respondent. Thus, the present dispute
was concluded by those judgments and decrees by the principle of res judicata.8

4. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the decree of District Munsif Court though of limited pecuniary jurisdiction would
operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit between the same parties?

5. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

5.1 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED – APPELLANTS
The learned senior counsel, Sri Sukumaran, in his effective persuasion and meticulous
preparation, contended that Section 11 and Explanation VIII of CPC should be read
harmoniously.9 He argued that the Amending Act of 1976 10 made no attempt to delete the
words “Court competent to try such” suit in the main section, which would indicate that the
legislature intended to retain the distinction between judgments of the court of limited
pecuniary jurisdiction, which will not operate as res judicata to a later suit laid in a court of
unlimited jurisdiction, on the same issue between the same parties or persons under whom
they claim title or litigate under the same title. Explanation VIII only brings within the fold of
Section 11, the decree or order of the courts of special jurisdiction, like probate court, land
acquisition court, rent control court, etc. The non obstante clause incorporated in Explanation

7
Ibid.
8
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair AIR 1994 SC 152, ¶ 3.
9
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 11 and Explanation VIII of Section 11.
10
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.

3
VIII would be only in relation to such decrees. The purpose of the explanation, therefore, is
only to remove that anomaly. The legislature having been aware of the law laid down by
courts, that the decree of a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction does not operate as res
judicata in a subsequent suit, did not intend to alter the law by suitable amendment to the
body of Section 11 of CPC.11 The counsel for the appellant also contended that the remedy of
injunction is an equitable relief and in equity, the doctrine of res judicata cannot be extended
to a decree of a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction.12

5.2 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED – RESPONDENTS

The counsel for the Respondents contended that Section 11 of the CPC embodies the rule of
conclusiveness as evidence or bars as a plea as issue tried in an earlier suit founded on a
plaint in which the matter is directly and substantially in issue and became final. In a later suit
between the same parties or their privies in a competent court to try such subsequent suit in
which the issue has been directly and substantially raised and decided in the judgment and
decree in the former suit would operate as res judicata. Section 11 does not create any right or
interest in the property, but merely operates as a bar to try the same issue once over. In other
words, it aims to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings and accords finality to an issue,
which directly and substantially had arisen in the former suit between the same parties or
their privies, decided and become final, so that parties are not vexed twice over and that
vexatious litigation would be put to an end and the valuable time of the court is saved. It is
based on public policy, as well as private justice. They would apply therefore, to all judicial
proceedings whether civil or otherwise. It equally applies to quasi-judicial proceedings of the
tribunals other than the civil courts.13

6. DECISION/RATIO
6.1 HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION OF EXPLANATION VIII AND SECTION 11 OF CPC
The Court firstly deliberated that to cull out the scope and ambit of Explanation VIII of CPC,
it is imperative to read it along with Section 11 of CPC in order to find the purpose it seeks to
serve. The Court observed that the Law Commission in its report recommended to remove
the anomaly and bring within its fold the conclusiveness of an issue in a former suit decided
by any court, be it either of limited pecuniary jurisdiction or of special jurisdiction, like
insolvency court, probate court, land acquisition court, Rent Controller, Revenue Tribunal,
11
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair AIR 1994 SC 152, ¶ 4; See also Nabin Majhi v. Tele Majhi AIR 1978
Cal 440; Pramode Ranjan Banerjee v. Nirapada Mkondel MANU/WB/0048/1980.
12
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair AIR 1994 SC 152, ¶ 9.
13
Id. at ¶ 5.

4
etc. No doubt main body of Section 11 was not amended, yet the expression “the court of
limited jurisdiction” in Explanation VIII is made enough to include a court whose jurisdiction
is subject to pecuniary limitation and other cognate expressions analogous thereto.14

Therefore, the Court, by relying upon its observation and earlier landmark judgements,
conclusively stated that Section 11 is to be read in combination and in harmony with
Explanation VIII. The result that would flow is that an order or an issue which had arisen
directly and substantially between the parties or their privies an decided finally be a
competent court or tribunal, though of limited or special jurisdiction, which includes
pecuniary jurisdiction, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding,
notwithstanding the fact that such court of limited or special jurisdiction was not a competent
court to try the subsequent suit. The issue must directly and substantially arise in a later suit
between the same parties or their privies. This question is no longer res integra. 15 The Court
therefore held that the decree of the District Munsif, though of limited pecuniary jurisdiction,
would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit between the same parties.

The Court further stated that the Calcutta High Court took a very narrow view limiting the
scope of Explanation VIII to the decisions of the courts of special jurisdiction like probate,
insolvency, land acquisition, courts, Rent Controller, Land Revenue Tribunal etc. To keep the
litigation unending, successive suits could be filed in the first instance in the court of limited
pecuniary jurisdiction and late in a court of higher jurisdiction, and the same issue shall be
subject of trial again, leading to conflict of decisions – which in the Court’s opinion was not a
reasoned approach at all. The Court in this regard deliberated that it is settled law that
explanation to a section is not a substantive provision by itself. It is entitled to explain the
meaning of the words contained in the section or clarify certain ambiguities of clear them up.
It becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. Its meaning must depend upon its terms.
Sometime, it would be added to include something within it or to exclude from the ambit of
the main provision of some condition or words occurring in it. Therefore, the explanation
normally should be so read as to harmonize with and to clear up any ambiguity in the same
section.16

14
Id. at ¶ 7.
15
Rai Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Rai Beni Madho Rakesh Singh MANU/PR/0038/1938; Daryao v. State of U.P.
(1962) 1 SCR 574; Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. 1981 CriLJ 1835.
16
Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair AIR 1994 SC 152, ¶ 9.

5
6.2 FINAL JUDGEMENT
The Court held that in the instant case when the right and interest of the respondent were
questioned in his suit against ‘K’, the validity of the settlement deed and the terms thereof
were gone into. The civil court had already found that ‘K’ acquired life-estate under the
settlement deed executed by his wife conferring vested remainder in the respondent and on its
basis the respondent was declared entitled to an injunction against ‘K’ who was prohibited
not only from committing acts of waste, but also from alienating the properties in favour of
third parties. The later suit of injunction to which the appellant was a party also binds the
appellant. Therefore, even the decree founded on equitable relief in which the issue was
directly and substantially in issue and decided, and attained finality, would operate as res
judicata in a subsequent suit based on title where the same issue directly and substantially
arises between the parties. The Court also held that the appellant is deriving title from ‘K’
who was a party in the former suit and, thus, it is also hit by the doctrine of Us pendens under
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.17

Accordingly, the Court held that the view of the Calcutta High Court is not good law and
contra view was upheld. The judgments and decrees were deemed to operate as res judicata
against the appellant, who derived his title from ‘K’.18

7. JURISPRUDENCE/CONCLUSION
By analyzing the instant case, it becomes pertinent to note that Res Judicata is a rule that is
established for a greater good of the society and also for the efficient working of a country’s
governance system. The stand of the Judiciary on this very doctrine in this case appears to be
much of a liberal and constructive one as the judges have forthrightly explained the wide
ambit of this very Doctrine and have justified the stand of this doctrine by not allowing the
clock to move back again. Take an instance, if the scope of Explanation VIII is confined to
the order and decree of an insolvency court, the scope of enlarging Explanation VIII would
be defeated and the decree of civil courts of limited pecuniary jurisdiction shall stand
excluded, while that of the former would be attracted. Such an anomalous situation must be
avoided. The principle of finality of litigation must be strictly followed as also held in the
instant case. Further, in my opinion, the lacuna that this doctrine leaves and those should be
addressed by bringing a much specific commentary, so that justice isn’t delivered

17
Transfer of Property Act 1882, Section 52.
18
Supra note 16.

6
discretionarily but in a uniform way, such that the Applicability of Section 11 of the CPC
should be correspondence to the principles of natural justice.19

19
Anmol Singh Khanuja, “Perusing the Doctrine of Res Judicata”, IJLMH, Vol. 3 Issue 6 2020, pp. 1187-1189.