Source: https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/1977/12/31/jayasundera-v-andris-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:28:26+00:00

Document:
HOWARD CJ.—Jay asunder a v. Andris.
JAYASUNDERA v. ANDRIS et al.
Res-judicata—Partition action—Claim by defendant to defined lot—Dismissalof action—Subsequent suit by defendant.
Where a partition action was dismissed on the ground that the defend-ant had acquired title to a defined lot as against another defendant tothe action and where the defendant subsequently brought an action tovindicate title to that lot against that other defendant.
Held, that the decision in the partition action operated as res judicata.Saram Appuhami v. Martinahamy (12 N. L. R. 102) followed.
^JPPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Galle.
N. E. Weerasooria, K.C. (with him H. A. Chandrasena) for theplaintiff, appellant.
E. B. Wikremanayake (with him S. Mahadeva), for the defendant,respondent.
&apos; HOWARD C.J.—Jayasundera v. Andris.
HOWARD C.J.—Jay asunder a v. Andris.
In these circumstances I do not see how it can be said that the questionof the title to lot 9 was not raised and decided in this case. “ Somedispute” which need not be considered must be taken to refer to the“ dispute ” about the “ certain plantation ” which, in the closing words.of the judgment of the District Judge, he held it was unnecessary todecide. In this action, however, the defendant in his answer to theplaintiffs claim has not maintained his claim to the rubber plantation.
(a) When a plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he claims without anadjudication between the defendants and such an adjudicationis made, not only between plaintiff and the defendants, butalso between the defendants.
<b) When adverse claims are set up by the defendants to an action,the Court may adjudicate upon the claims of such defendantsamong themselves, and such adjudication will be res judicatabetween adversary defendants as well as between the plaintiffand the defendants.
There seems to be some inconsistency between the criterion as formu-lated by Sir George Lowndes and the principle expounded byJayawardene A.J. in Senaratne v. Perera inasmuch as according to SirGeorge Lowndes it is a condition precedent to the application of the ruleof res judicata that it must be necessary to decide the conflict between thedefendants to give the plaintiff the relief he claims. The rule as stated byJayawardene A.J. does not, however, in his exception (2) include such a• 26 iV. L. if. 225.* dl N. L. if. 20S.
3 A. 1. if. 1931, P. C. lid.
In regard to the question of title to lot 9, the plaintiff in D. C No. 35,553and the present first defendant really occupied the position of co-plaintiffsin relation to the present plaintiff. For these reasons I am of opinionthat the appeal must be allowed and judgment entered for the plaintiff asprayed for except that damages are awarded at Rs. 20 a year till theplaintiff is restored to possession. Although plaintiff claimed Rs. 150per annum in his plaint, his evidence is that he could have obtained anincome of Rs. 20 per annum only. The plaintiff is allowed his costs inthis Court and the Court below.
1 12 A&apos; K. 102.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.