Case: Hope Plantations Ltd Vs. Taluk Land Board, Peermade

estoppel is based, public policy and justice, have greater force in cause of action estoppel, the subject matter of the two proceedings being identical, than they do in issue estoppel, where the subject matter is different. Once it is accepted that different considerations apply to issue estoppel, it is hard to perceive any logical distinction between a point which was previously raised and decided and one which might have been but was not. Given that the further material which would have put an entirely different complexion on the point was at the earlier stage unknown to the party and could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered by him, it is hard to see why there should be a different result according to whether he decided not to take the point, thinking it hopeless, or argue it faintly without any real hope of success. In my opinion your Lordships should affirm it to be the law that there may be an exception to issue estoppel in the special circumstances that there has become available to a party further material relevant to the correct determination of a point involved in the earlier proceedings, whether or not that point was specifically raised and decided, being material which could not by reasonable diligence have been adduced in those proceedings. One of the purposes of estoppel being to work justice between the parties, it is open to courts to recognise that in special circumstances inflexible application of it may have the opposite result.... Next question for consideration is whether the further relevant material which a party may be permitted to bring forward in the later proceedings is confined to matters of fact, or whether what may not entirely inappositely be described as a change in the law may result in, or be an element in special circumstances enabling an issue to be re-opened. Your Lordships should appropriately, in my opinion, regard the matter as entire and approach it from the point of view of principle. If a Judge has made a mistake, perhaps a very egregious mistake, as is said of Walton J.s judgment here, and a later judgment of a higher court overrules his decision in another case, do considerations of justice require that the party who suffered from the mistake should be shut out, when the same issue arises in later proceedings with a different subject matter, from reopening that issue ? I am satisfied, in agreement with both courts below, that the instant case presents special circumstances such as to require the plaintiffs to be permitted to reopen the question of construction decided against them by Walton J., that being a decision which I regard as plainly wrong. 27. Mr. Salves assertions based on the aforesaid decision of the House of Lords may be valid to an extent but then in view of the principles of law laid by this Court on the application of res judicata and estoppel and considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Code we do not think there is any scope to incorporate the exception to the rule of issue estoppel as given in Arnold and others v. National Westminster Bank Plc. (supra). 28. Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, a different if an issue which had been decided in earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile law has changed or has been interpreted differently by higher forum. But that situation does not exist here. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings. If we refer to Order XLVII of the Code (explanation to Rule 1) review is not permissible on the ground that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 29. Since the appellant never claimed exemption outside the ceiling area on the ground of cardamom plantation the question was never gone into in the earlier proceedings of this Court. This point, therefore, could not be agitated before the Taluk Land Board dealing with the matter on remand as finality attached to the areas under the fuel area and rested tea area for which exemption was not or fully granted. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to go into the question if cardamom plantation existed at the relevant time. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on the extent of `fuel area and `rested tea area as determined finally by this Court in CA No. 227/789 and would dismiss the appeal limited to this extent. 30. Though we have upheld the order of the High Court mainly on the grounds of res judicata and estoppel, submission of the appellant commends to us that they be given opportunity to approach the State Government to seek exemption under provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. This is particularly so as a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that supply of fuel wood to employees is for the purpose connected with the plantation, which is a later decision of the two-Judge Bench decision of this Court. Further that rested tea area is a part of tea plantation was not properly projected before this Court as has been rightly contended by Mr. Salve. It is a matter of experience and on reference to authoritative textbooks if rested tea areas are part of the plantation. 31.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]21. Form 1 under which statements/return is to be filed requires complete details of the plantation as meant in Section 2(44) of the Act. It is to be accompanied with various annexures. The appellant never claimed exemption on the ground of Cardamom plantation existing prior to 1964. It never asked for amendment of the return/statement at any stage of the proceedings. It sought exemption on the ground of the land under the heading `fuel area. Once the matter had been determined by the Supreme Court in appeal, there was no scope for any review by Taluk Land Board to hold that there was Cardamom Plantation existing prior to 1964 in that very area. Mr. P. Krishnamrthy is right in his submissions that there was no foundation ever made for review of that part of the land falling under the `fuel area was, in fact, cardamom plantation. There was no scope for invoking the provisions of sub-section (9) and/or (9- A) of Section 85 of the Act. The two decisions of the Kerala High Court are, therefore, not quite relevant for our purposes22. High Court by its judgment dated March 15, 1977 had set aside the order of Taluk Land Board allowing exemption of 100 acres when appellant had claimed 263.83 acres as agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated by the appellant. The extent of this area was to be determined by the Land Board as Taluk Land Board at the relevant time had no jurisdiction to so determine. The appellant had specifically claimed 263.83 acres of such land under the head other agricultural land interspersed. After the remand Taluk Land Board was also vested with power w.e.f. 7.7.197 to determine the extent of land under Clause (c) of Section 2(44) of the Act. That would not, however, mean that Taluk Land Board could now determine that area under this head exceeded 263.83 acres. To the extent that Taluk Land Board by its order dated July 26, 1980 upheld the claim of the appellant to 263.83 acres as agricultural land interspersed within the boundaries of the area cultivated with plantation crops cannot be failed. Though under the heads `fuel area and `rested tea area there was difference of opinion among the Chairman and other members of the Taluk Land Board there was unanimity between them on the question of area of 263.83 acres falling under the head `other agricultural land interspersed. It cannot be said that Taluk Land Board, while determining this area, did not take into consideration relevant factors as mentioned in clause (c) of Section 2(44) of the Act. We do not think it was necessary for the High Court to lay down any further guidelines than what are given in the provision and for that purpose to remand the matter again to the Taluk Land Board. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court to that extent23. It is settled law that principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of the law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some essential particulars. Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are `cause of action estoppel and `issue estoppel. These two terms are of common law origin. Again once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel. It operates in any subsequent proceedings in the same suit in which the issue had been determined. It also operates in subsequent suits between the same parties in which the same issue arises. Section 11 of the code of Civil Procedure contains provisions of res judicata but these are not exhaustive of the general doctrine of res judicata. Legal principles of estoppel and res judicata are equally applicable in proceedings before administrative authorities as they are based on public policy and justice24. As to what is issue estoppel was considered by this Court in Gopal Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1970(2) SCC 905. This case arose out of criminal prosecution, the accused was tried on a charge under Section 409IPC for having committing criminal breach of trust for Rs. 27,800/- during the period between January 31, 1960 to November 30, 1960, when he was acting as Cashier in the Public Works Department of the State. The accused contended that he had been put up on a trial in a previous case under Section 409,IPC for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to certain amounts during the period December 8, 1960 to August 17, 1961 and in that case the High Court had acquitted him holding that he was not in charge of the cash. The point of issue-estoppel was, thus, raised by the accused. The trial Court held that the aforesaid finding of the High Court could not operate as a res judicata. High Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court. In this Court, it was contended that substantially it was the same issue that was tried during the earlier trial and if the accused was not the Cashier from December 8, 1960 to August 11, 1961, he could not be held to be Cashier from January 31, 1960 to November 11, 196027. Mr. Salves assertions based on the aforesaid decision of the House of Lords may be valid to an extent but then in view of the principles of law laid by this Court on the application of res judicata and estoppel and considering the provisions of Section 11 of the Code we do not think there is any scope to incorporate the exception to the rule of issue estoppel as given in Arnold and others v. National Westminster Bank Plc. (supra)28. Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, a different if an issue which had been decided in earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile law has changed or has been interpreted differently by higher forum. But that situation does not exist here. Principles of constructive res judicata apply with full force. It is the subsequent stage of the same proceedings29. Since the appellant never claimed exemption outside the ceiling area on the ground of cardamom plantation the question was never gone into in the earlier proceedings of this Court. This point, therefore, could not be agitated before the Taluk Land Board dealing with the matter on remand as finality attached to the areas under the fuel area and rested tea area for which exemption was not or fully granted. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to go into the question if cardamom plantation existed at the relevant time. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of the High Court on the extent of `fuel area and `rested tea area as determined finally by this Court in CA No. 227/789 and would dismiss the appeal limited to this extent30. Though we have upheld the order of the High Court mainly on the grounds of res judicata and estoppel, submission of the appellant commends to us that they be given opportunity to approach the State Government to seek exemption under provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 81 of the Act. This is particularly so as a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that supply of fuel wood to employees is for the purpose connected with the plantation, which is a later decision of the two-Judge Bench decision of this Court. Further that rested tea area is a part of tea plantation was not properly projected before this Court as has been rightly contended by Mr. Salve. It is a matter of experience and on reference to authoritative textbooks if rested tea areas are part of the plantation.