SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Code of Civil Procedure

IFTIKHAR AHMED V. SYED MEHARBAN ALI, AIR 1974 SC 749 (K.K. MATHEW, J.)

 IFTIKHAR AHMED V. SYED MEHARBAN ALI, AIR 1974 SC 749 (K.K. MATHEW, J.)

 

FACTS

  • Disputes arose concerning the title of property between appellants (Legal representatives of the initial appellant) and respondents.
  • Arbitrator 1 held the earlier HC judgment (hereinafter referred to as “suit 1934”) operative as res judicata and held the appellant to be the exclusive owner.
  • The civil judge held otherwise and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision back to the arbitrator.
  • Arbitrator 2 held the suit 1934 not being operative as res judicata.
  • The civil judge dismissed the objections by the appellant by holding the suit 1934 being not operative as res judicata and on appeal by the appellant, the district judge allowed the appeal. High Court on revision by the respondent reversed and restored the civil judge’s decree.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether the earlier judgment can operate as res judicata between the co-plaintiff?

 

HELD

The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside and the award passed by the first Arbitrator was restored.

  • 1934 suit - The appellant & respondents were co-plaintiffs in the mortgage suit wherein the High Court in 2nd appeal held that the suit property alone belonged to the instant appellant since the mother of the respondents relinquished her shares.
  • In Ram Bhaj v Ahmed Said Akhtar Khan (AIR 1938 Lah 571), it was observed that the raison d’etre of the rule of res judicata is to confer finality on decisions arrived at by competent Courts between interested parties after genuine contest; and to allow persons who had deliberately chosen a position to reprobate it and to blow hot now when they were blowing cold before would be completely to ignore the whole foundation of the rule.
  • A judgment may operate as res judicata between or among co-defendants if 3 conditions are fulfilled:
    • There must be a conflict between the co-defendants
    • It must be necessary to decide the conflict to give appropriate relief to the plaintiff
    • The court must have finally decided the conflict
  • In Chandu Lal v Khalilur Rahman (AIR 1950 PC 17) it was observed that if conditions are fulfilled then judgment may also operate res judicata between the co-plaintiffs.
  • In the suit 1934 for giving relief to the defendant, the court had to decide the conflict between the co-plaintiffs; the court did so and held in favour of the current appellant.

 

COMMENTARY

As a matter may be res judicata between a plaintiff and a defendant, similarly, it may be res judicata between co-defendants and co-plaintiffs also. An adjudication will operate as res judicata between co-defendants if the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) There must be a conflict of interest between co-defendants;

(2) It must be necessary to decide that conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff,

(3) The question between co-defendants must have been finally decided; and

(4) The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. If these conditions are satisfied, the adjudication will operate as res judicata between co-defendants.