Q. What are the equivalent citations for Panchanada Velan vs Vaithinatha Sastrial ?

The equivalence citation are(1906) 16 MLJ 63 ; (1906) ILR 29 MAD 333 ; LQ/MadHC/1905/95 ;

Panchanada Velan Vs. Vaithinatha Sastrial On 10 November, 1905

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Panchanada Velan vs Vaithinatha Sastrial?

HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. CHARLES ARNOLD WHITE, KT. , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

Open iDraf

Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial

Panchanada Velan
v.
Vaithinatha Sastrial

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Second Appeal No. 997 Of 1903 | 10-11-1905

[1] Technically, no doubt, the tenant s appeal ought to have been in both suits, and the proper course for the District Judge to have taken would have been to require the appellant to amend his memorandum of appeal so as to make it an appeal in both suits: but the fact that the tenant only appealed in his own suit and did not prefer an appeal in the landlord s suit, did not preclude the District Judge from deciding upon the merits the questions raised in the appeal which was before him. The subject matter of the litigation in the two suits was the same, the evidence was the same and the two suits were tried together. The reasons for which the tenant s suit was dismissed were the reasons for which judgment was given in favour of the landlord in his (the landlord s) suit.

[2] We do not think that either under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code or on general principles, the doctrine of res judicata has any application to the facts of this case. The doctrine does not apply when, as here, the very object of the appeal, in substance if not in form, is to get rid of the adjudication which is said to render the question which the appellate court is asked to decide res judicata. The tenant s appeal in his suit, if successful, would have the effect of superseding the adjudication in the landlord s suit. See the judgment, of the Full Bench in Jogesh Chander Dutt v. Kali Churan Dutt (1877) I.L.R. 3 C.

30. It is not necessary to consider what might be the exact legal effect of such a supersession. All we have to decide in the present case is whether the appellate Court was precluded from dealing with the appeal by reason of the doctrine of res judicata.

[3] It would lead to startling results if we were to hold that an appellate tribunal is precluded from dealing with a question which comes before it on appeal, because an inferior Court, upon the same facts, but in a case other than the case under appeal, had given a decision which had not been appealed against, at the same time as the decision in the case under appeal.

[4] We think Abdul Majid v. Jew Narain Matho (1888) I.L.R. 16 C. 233, was rightly decided.

[5] Our answer to the question referred to us must be in the negative.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties ----

Bench List

HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. CHARLES ARNOLD WHITE, KT.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANIA AIYAR

Eq Citation

(1906) 16 MLJ 63

(1906) ILR 29 MAD 333

LQ/MadHC/1905/95

HeadNote

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal — Appeal in one suit only — Effect of — Tenant s appeal in his suit if successful would have effect of superseding adjudication in landlord s suit — Proper course for District Judge would have been to require appellant to amend his memorandum of appeal so as to make it an appeal in both suits — But fact that tenant only appealed in his own suit and did not prefer an appeal in landlord s suit did not preclude District Judge from deciding upon merits questions raised in appeal which was before him — Subject matter of litigation in two suits was same — Evidence was same and two suits were tried together — Reasons for which tenant s suit was dismissed were reasons for which judgment was given in favour of landlord in his landlord s suit (Para 1) B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 13 — Res judicata — Applicability of doctrine of — Held, doctrine does not apply when very object of appeal in substance if not in form is to get rid of adjudication which is said to render question which appellate court is asked to decide res judicata — Tenant s appeal in his suit if successful would have effect of superseding adjudication in landlord 's suit — Full Bench judgment in Jogesh Chander Dutt v Kali Churan Dutt, 1877 ILR 3 C 30 relied on — Held, it is not necessary to consider what might be exact legal effect of such a supersession — All that has to be decided is whether appellate court was precluded from dealing with appeal by reason of doctrine of res judicata (Paras 2 and 3)