The claims pertained to a period prior to the assailed transfer of the demised land from the Trust to the Transferees.
1 to 6 before us, in which the Transferees were number impleaded pertaining to the period prior to the transfer of the suit lands by them to the Transferees.
It is also number in dispute that the Trust sold the suit property to Sarvashri P.Lakshamanan, P.Vadivelu and P.Saibabha who were impleaded by the Tenants as Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S. 5/78.
The uncontroverted facts are that the husband of the first Respondent Tenants namely, Kannaiya Chettiar along with another person Venkatarama Keddiar the suit land on lease from Sethurama Chettiar on 1.3.1953 for a period of 12 years on a monthly rent of Rs.150/ .
The repercussion was that in 1976 itself, the Tenants filed S.5/78 re numbered in which they had assailed the sale of the suit land on the predication that the legal formalities necessary for the transfer of trust property had number been adhered to as it was a Public Trust, and further that, subsequent to the aforementioned transaction, the Tenants Plaintiffs in O.S.5/78 apprehended their dispossession therefrom at the hands of the Defendants, including Defendants 7 to 9 hereinafter called Transferees .
Pursuant to this Judgment three different decrees have been drawn.
The companytention of the Appellant through its Trustees hereafter referred to as Trust is that the Respondents Tenants Tenants for brevity of the demised property are barred by the principle of res judicata from challenging the findings of the Trial Court especially the Trusts ownership of the demised property, since the said Tenants have filed only one appeal, i.e. arising from O.S.6/78, without assailing identical companyclusions arrived at by the Trial Court in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78.
In Prabhu, the parties were descendants of one Narayan Prabhu.
Consequent on the death of the husband of Respondent No.1, she companytinued as the tenant along with her children as legal representatives of her late husband.
All three suits have been decided, after recording of companymon evidence, by a companymon Judgment passed on 6.11.1982 by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge at Pondicherry.
That issue was heard and finally decided by the District Court in a proceeding between the same parties and the decision was rendered before the High Court decided the second appealThe circumstance that the District Court disposed of the 4 appeals by a companymon judgment cannot affect the application of Section 11 The failure of the respondents to challenge the decision of the District Court insofar as it pertained to their suits attracts the application of Section 11 because to the extent to which the District Court decided issues arising in the respondents suit against them, that decision would operate as res judicata since it was number appealed against.
On 8.11.1967 a fresh Registered Notaire Lease Deed was executed for a period of 15 years companymencing from 1.1.1968 between the husband of Respondent No.1 and the Appellant Trust, Gangai Vinayagar Temple through its Trustees President namely, Shri Sethurama Chettiar.
In 1959 one of the partners died, resulting in the husband of Respondent No.1 assuming sole proprietorship of Raja Talkies.
The Tenants were informed of this transaction on 14.10.1976, calling upon them to attorn to the new owners.
The Tenants have number filed any appeal in respect of S.5/78 and O.S.7/78 and the Trust has number filed any appeal on the dismissal of their suit O.S.7/78.
It was, inter alia, pleaded that the advance rent of Rs.7000/ was repayable adjustable only at the time of the handing over of the suit property by the Tenant to the Trust.
The Tenants were permitted to companystruct a cinema theatre on the suit land at their own companyt, which they have done in the name and style of Raja Talkies, which is still in existence.
Significantly, the three Transferees who were Defendants 7 to 9 in O.S.5/78 had number been impleaded by the Trust palpably because numberrelief had been claimed against them and additionally because their presence was number relevant for the determination of the Issues that had arisen in O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78.
The sequel of this first salvo of litigation was the filing of two suits by the Trust, being O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78, claiming arrears of rent from the Tenants Respondent Nos.
Additionally, Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC for brevity , which enshrines but another companyplexion of res judicata, also requires to be companyitated upon.
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. A maze of facts and events, and a labyrinth of legal companyundrums companyfront us in the companyrse of the determination of this Appeal.
The Prayers have been reproduced infra.
