Explanation VI: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating."
12. There is no dispute to the fact that 2 persons belonging to Sobbiar and Palivithiar sect of 24 manai Telugu Chettiar denomination filed earlier suit in O.S.No.111/1987 representing the trust challenging the very same alienation made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant, arraying the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment authorities also as one of the defendants in the said suit. Ex.B1 to B4 are the pleadings submitted by rival parties in the said suit in O.S.No.111/1987 before the very same Trial Court namely District Munsif Court,Pollachi. Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.6 are the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.8 are the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court. The fact remains that no second appeal was preferred as against the aforesaid judgment passed by the first Appellate Court in the earlier suit relating to the very same property.
13. The present suit has been filed by 2 persons representing the community belonging to Sobbiar and Palivithiar sect of 24 manai Telugu Chettiar challenging the very same alienation with respect to the suit property made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant in the guise of permission under Ex.B.9 granted by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment. The suit in O.S.No.111/1987 is found to be the earlier suit and the same was decided earlier to the present suit. The very same issues arisen in the present suit were directly and substantially in issue in O.S.No.111/1987. The plaintiffs in the present suit and the plaintiffs in the earlier suit have been litigating in respect of the public right revolving around the trust property. They have made their claim in this suit in common not only for themselves but also for their own community people, who have interest in the plaintiff trust. Though two persons representing the present suit are literally different from the two persons representing the earlier suit, as they have been litigating with respect to a public right in the trust in common for themselves and others in the very same community, it is deemed that the two persons, who has laid the present suit have been litigating only under the two persons, who had already litigated the suit in O.S.No.111 of 1987.
14. The Supreme Court in Narayana Prabhu Venkateswara Prabhu Vs. Narayana Prabhu Krishna Prabhu (dead) by L.Rs.,AIR 1977 SC 1268 has held as follows:
"We think that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is sound. In a partition suit each party claiming that the property is joint, asserts a right and litigates under a title which is common to others who make identical claims. It that very issue is litigated in another suit and decided we do not see why the others making the same claim cannot be held to be claiming a right "in common for themselves and others". Each of them can be deemed, by reason of explanation VI, to represent all those the nature of whose claims and interests are common or identical. If we were to hold otherwise, it would necessarily mean that there would be two inconsistent decrees. One of the tests in deciding whether the doctrine or res judicata applies to a particular case or not is to determine whether two inconsistent decrees will come into existence if it is not applied. We think this will be the case here."
15. A different set of joint owners cannot lay a different partition suit, when other set of joint owners had already laid a partition suit litigating similar issues as otherwise there would exist two inconsistent decrees. One set of joint owners who had already made a claim in a suit could be treated as persons, who were litigating in common for themselves and others by reason of the explanation 6 to Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, it has been ruled therein.
16. No one representing an organization can be permitted to litigate when some other person representing the very same organization had already litigated the suit involving the very same issues.
17. In the instant case Exs. B1 to B8 would go to establish that the very same substantial issues raised by two other representatives of the very same community Sobbiar sect and Palivithiyar sect of 24 manai Telugu Chettiar in O.S.No.111/87 were already answered by the Trial Court and the said suit also reached finality at the first Appellate Court stage itself. Therefore, two sets of other people belonging to the very same community cannot litigate the very same substantial issues which had already been determined in the previously instituted suit.
18. Though the persons representing the community are virtually different in both the suits as per explanation VI to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present set of persons representing the community would be deemed to claim under the other set of persons who already litigated on the very same substantial issues. Therefore, the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs that the persons, who have presently filed the suit are not the very same persons, who had filed earlier in O.S.No.111/1987 is not acceptable to the Court. The principles of Res Judicata adumbrated under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure squarely applies to the case on hand as the very same issues substantially involved in the present suit had already been determined in the earlier suit laid by a different set of persons from the very same community.
19. The appellate Court has misdirected itself with respect to the aforesaid question of law. Therefore, the first Appellate Court's Judgment calls for interference.
20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court and setting aside the Judgment of the first appellate Court, the appeal is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
kua To
1.District Munisif, Pollachi
2. Sub Court, Udumalpet