Case: Jeevantha &amp; Others Vs. Hanumantha &amp; Others

(1) These two appeals were presented to the Judicial Committee of the State and are now before us under Art. 374 (4) of the Constitution.(2) Ona suit was brought by the father of the present plaintiffs against the present appellants for a declaration of his title in respect of three survey numbers, 36, 38 and 54, which were assessed at Rs. 84.00 land revenue. It was also prayed that a sale deed that had been executed in respect of this property by defendants 1 and 3 in favour of defendant 2 be cancelled. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim. They pleaded that the plaintiff was not a shikmedar in the land in suit and that he was not the owner of it under any sale deed and was not in possession of it.

Reasoning:
(4) It is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case because we think that the defendants have made out their plea of the res judicata and the decisions of the Court below on this issue are erroneous. It is true that in order to make out a plea of res judicata it is necessary to prove that the Court that tried the former suit was competent to try the present suit. There can be no question about it but it is also settled that in order to determine whether a Court which decided the former suit had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit, regard must be had to the jurisdiction of that Court at the date of the former suit and not to its jurisdiction at the date of the subsequent suit. If at that time such a Court would have been competent to try the subsequent suit, had it been then brought, the decision of such Court would operate as res judicata although subsquently by a rise in the value of the property that Court had ceased to be a proper Court, so far as regards its pecuniary jurisdiction, to take cognizance of a suit relating to that very property. It seems to us that this rule of law was overlooked in all the Courts below. The property in dispute in the two suits is identical. At the date of the earlier suit it was assessed to land revenue in the sum of Rs. 84.00 while at the date of the later suit it was assessed in the sum of Rs. 104.00. The difference in the jurisdictional value has arisen by reason of the increase in the land revenue assessment. The circumstance, however, could not affect the plea of res judicata. The present suit, if brought in the year 1913, would have been within the competence of the Munsif who tried the first suit because the land revenue assessed on these survey members then was only Rs. 84.00 and the valuation of the suit would have been Rs. 840.00, within the Munsifs pecuniary jurisdiction. This was the only ground urged against the application of the rule of res judicata to his case. In all other respects it was admitted that the case was within that rule. The result therefore is that the plaintiffs suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision of the former suit decided in the year 1921.