Latchanna vs Saravayya and Others

Muttusami Ayyar, J.—The question for determination in this appeal is whether the defendant''s claim to the land in dispute as his inam is res

judicata. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated by the Subordinate Judge in paragraph 7 of his judgment. It is observed by him that as

between the plaintiff and the defendants in the previous suit including plaintiff and first defendant the question is certainly res judicata. Though the

plaintiff and defendants in the present suit wore merely co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were ex parte and there was no contest

between them, yet my decision in this case must depend on explanation V of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held with reference

to that explanation in Chandu v. Kunhamed ILR 14 Mad. 324 that though the first defendant in that case under whom the then plaintiff claimed was

ex parte in the previous suit and the title of the second defendant cannot, therefore, be said to have been actively contested between the then first

and second defendants in the previous suit, yet the first defendant and his other co-sharers must be held as claiming under the plaintiff in the

previous suit by explanation Y of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case now before me is on all fours with that case. The parties to

this suit were co-defendants in the previous suit, and though they were all ex parte, the land in question was claimed by the then plaintiff as part of

the agraharam land which was liable for redistribution among him and the defendants who are other agraharamdars and his co-sharers. It was the

first defendant who claimed the land in question as his inam in execution; but his claim was disallowed u/s 244. Upon these facts it is clear that the

other co-defendants who were co-sharers in the agraharam with the plaintiff in the previous suit must be taken as claiming under him as he claimed

the land as common to himself and other agraharamdars and as such partible amongst them. The principle on which this explanation rests is that

when an adjudication is necessary to give the appropriate relief to the plaintiff in the prior suit, the adjudication is res judicata, even as between co-

defendants when the right asserted by the plaintiff and decided in the previous suit was one so asserted and decided as common to himself and

others.

The order of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and the decision of the District Munsif restored. Respondents will pay appellant''s costs

both in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court.