Saraswathi vs Muthukumaraswami (died)

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The plaintiff, who succeeded before the Principal District Munsif at Karaikkal in the suit, O.S. 59 of 1979, and who lost his cause in the appeal A.S. 19 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Karaikkal, preferred by the defendant in the suit, is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of arrears of rent. The defendant contested the suit denying the very status of a tenant. There was a proceeding in O.P. 35 of 1976 on the file of the Revenue Court, Karaikkal, under the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Act, instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. In that proceeding also the defendant would put forth a plea that he is not a tenant of the plaintiff. The Revenue Court posed the questions as to whether the defendant was a cultivating tenant under the plaintiff and whether the defendant was in arrears of rent. The Revenue Court rendered findings in favour of the plaintiff and ordered eviction, and the certified copy of the order in O.P. 35 of 1976 has been exhibited in the present suit as Ex.A3. This order of eviction got executed. Thus the plaintiff came forward with the suit for recovery of arrears. The Principal District Munsif of Karaikkal, took note of the order of the Revenue Court as concluding the issue and operating as res judicata against the defendant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed as stated above in A.S. 19 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Karaikkal. The lower appellate Court opining that the decision of the Revenue Court could not operate as res judicata on the question thought fit to set aside the judgment and decree of the first Court and allowed the appeal. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. The defendant, who is the respondent herein, died pending the second appeal and his legal representatives have been brought on record. At the time of the admission of this second appeal, this court deemed fit to formulate the following substantial questions of law for consideration--

Is the defendant entitled to deny that he is a cultivating tenant despite the finding of the Revenue Court to the contrary?

Is the defence barred by res judicata?

Is the defendant the cultivating tenant under the plaintiff?

Whether the appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, by the appellate Court is not in accordance with law?

Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, would submit that the Revenue Court had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the Revenue Court having rendered a decision in favour of the plaintiff, that must govern and must be held to be binding on the parties and the principle of ret judicata will certainly come into play as per Explanation VIII to S.11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Explanation VIII to S.11 of the CPC reads as follows:--

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 in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

The Revenue Court exercising authority under the Act can be held to be a Court of limited jurisdiction within the meaning of Explanation VIII. The Revenue Court is vested with the jurisdiction over questions relating to the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant, as to the status, as to the terms on which he held the tenancy or he holds the tenancy and as to similar questions and the Revenue Court must be held to be competent to decide such issues. A decision by the Revenue Court on these issues, which is within its competence, will certainly operate as res judicata in view of Explanation VIII to S.11, C.P. Code. The lower appellate Court in the present case has taken note of pronouncements, which had come to be rendered prior to the introduction of Explanation VIII by the Central Act 104 of 1976 into the Code of Civil Procedure. The legal position being what it is in view of Explanation VIII to S.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no escape for the defendant from the mischief of the principle of res judicata on the facts of the present case. In this view, this second appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside, and the suit O.S. 59 1979 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Karaikkal there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4014-34, with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation, the amounts being recoverable from the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, who have been already brought on record, from and out of the assets of the deceased defendant in their hands. Considering the nature of the litigation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.