Concept of Sub Judicata in CPC

Concept

You must have cause of action which means you are asserting a legal right. Legal right means you have a legal capacity or title or legal relationship with respect to a subject matter. Now, what was the source of this legal right? Source must be some transaction and this source is called Matter-in issue. So, Matter in issue is how did you get the legal right or title, which means all the grounds on the basis of which a person is entitled.

Suppose A has filed a suit for possession against B on the basis of ownership.
In this situation: -

• Cause of action – dispossession.
• Title – Owner
• Right – Ownership
• Subject matter – House (property)
• Relief – Possession
• Matter in issue – Grounds/transaction/sources that A is the owner.

Grounds:

1. There might be some sale deed
2. Partition (coparcenary property)
3. Succession
   1. Will
   2. Gift,

All these grounds are matter in issue. Res Judicata applies on matter in issue only.

In simple term Res Judicata means if any suit or any issue once decided then it will never reopen. So, in the given example if A prove his ownership once on the basis of sale deed that he is the owner and judgment passed in favour of A. Now, B files suit against A that B is the owner not A. so this suit will not decide Res Judicata will apply.

Ancient Indian Judiciary : The principle of res judicata is founded on the ancient Indian principle of prangnyaya (previous judgment). The principle is stated in Brihaspati Smriti “if a person who has been defeated in a suit according to the law files the plaint once again, he must be told that he has been defeated already; this is called plea of prang-nyaya.

Meaning :

“Res Judicata” consists of two Latin Words, 'Res' means a thing or a matter or a question and 'Judicata' means adjudicated, adjudged or decided. Therefore, the expression 'Res-judicata'' means "a thing or matter already adjudged or adjudicated or decided". Res-judicata means "a final judicial decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction 24 over the cause or matter in litigation, and over the parties thereto.

The principal of Res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to judicial decisions. When a matter whether on a question of fact or a question of Law-has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher Court or because the appeal was dismissed or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again.

Object: The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:

• Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause);
• Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litiunm (it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end toa litigation); and
• Resjudicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct).

Section 11: "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-I: The expression "Former Suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

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

Explanation-III: The mater 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.

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 suit.

Explanation-V: Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the degree, shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of 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.

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

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 as 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.

Important Terms and Understanding of Explanation:

To understand the doctrine of Res-judicata, it is essential to know the meaning of the following terms.

• Former suit (Explanation I ) :
  The expression "former suit" shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Suppose Suit 1 instituted prior and suit 2 subsequently instituted having same parties and same matter in issue, so technically section 10 will apply on subsequent suit and stay on it. But it does not happen for some reason and later subsequent suit decided prior. Now, in this situation res judicata will apply on pending suit and suit 1 will be dismissed.
• The expression “competent to try "(Explanation II):
  Competent to try means competent to try the subsequent suit if brought at the time the first suit was brought. Competency relates both to pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter. It has no reference to territorial jurisdiction.
  The question whether there is a bar of res judicata does not depend on the existence of a right of appeal but on the question whether the same issue has been heard and finally decided. (Ram Gobinda v. Bhakta Bala AIR 1976 SC 664).
• Matter directly and substantially in issue: Explanation III :
  To understand Explanation III, we need to understand Matter in Issue.
  Matters in Issue: The expression 'matter in issue' means the right litigated between the parties. The matters in issue may be:

A matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. In the case of  Ragho Prasad Gupta v. Krishna Poddar the Supreme Court held that a mere expression of opinion on a question not in issue cannot operate as res judicata.

Direct and substantial issues are those issues which are necessary to be decided for the proper disposal of the suit. If in any suit some issues are not necessary to be decided but court decides it. Now in sub