Principle Of Res Judicata Is Inapplicable To Enquiry Or Trial Under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Regular First Appeal against the Judgment of the Civil Judge in a Partition Suit.
The Karnataka High Court observed that the principle of res judicata is inapplicable to the parties to the proceedings i.e., the enquiry or trial under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Court observed thus in a Regular First Appeal against the Judgment of the Civil Judge in a Partition Suit.
A Single Bench of Justice C.M. Joshi summarized the following principles –
"(1) The principle of res judicata is inapplicable to the parties to the proceedings i.e., the enquiry or trial under order 22 Rule 5 CPC.
(2) The findings of the First Appellate Court on such 'finding' is binding on the parties to the lis in that proceeding, only to represent the estate of the deceased;
(3) The coinage of the word summary enquiry have emanated from the fact that (a) there is no pleadings, issue concerning the questions involved in the enquiry; (b) that there should not be delay in adjudication of the main matter.
(4) The proviso to Rule 5 do not indicate a summary enquiry as is done under Order 37 of CPC but uses the word ‘try’ and ‘trial’ twice indicating that the evidence recorded has trappings of trial."
Advocate G. Balakrishna Shastry appeared for the Appellants while Advocates T. Rajaram, K.N. Nitish, and K.V. Narasimhan appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The propositus Nagappa had six sons and a daughter and the first son had separated from the family more than 50 years ago. The rest of the sons constituted a Joint Hindu Family/Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The father of the Plaintiff Nos. 1-3 was manager of the family and the family had ancestral and joint family properties. Another son of Nagappa died unmarried and the Plaintiff Nos. 3 & 4 who were arrayed as Defendants were transposed as Plaintiffs during the pendency of the Suit.
Plaintiff No. 4 was the wife of another son of Nagappa. During the pendency of suit, Defendant No. 1 died and his Legal Representatives (LRs) were brought on record. Since the death of the father of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 about 20 years ago, the Plaintiffs were demanding their respective shares. It was contended that Defendants on one or the other pretext, postponed the partition and therefore, the plaintiffs filed a Suit for partition. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court, the Appellants approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… though the evidence recorded is having the trappings of the trial, it is not res-judicata for the parties in as much as it is not preceded or supported by pleadings and issues.”
The Court said that in many cases where the enquiry is conducted under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC, the parties venture into letting in all evidence as if it is in a Suit where the Will is in challenge, but in fact such a venture is unnecessary.
“Therefore, whenever such voluminous evidence is recorded and let in during the enquiry, it may be of significance, if imported in the subsequent proceedings between same parties. However, the reasoning of the trial Court or the Appellate Court cannot be of any significance as it is only for the purpose of ascertaining the Legal Representative”, it added.
The Court further noted that by driving the Plaintiffs out of the house when they demanded share cannot be equated to an ouster from the suit schedule property, for which, they were in joint possession.
“The defendants have denied the rights of the plaintiffs stating that they are not entitled for the share in the suit schedule properties and it cannot be an ouster. A denial of rights and title in the joint family property at no stretch of imagination can be held to be an ouster from the property”, it observed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- A.N. Leelanagaraja & Ors. v. Nagarathnamma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:1708)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate G. Balakrishna Shastry
Respondents: Advocates T. Rajaram, K.N. Nitish, K.V. Narasimhan, G.R. Sujatha, and K.A. Nagesh.
