බෙදුම් නඩුවකට res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය අදාළ නොවන්නේ ද?

බෙදුම් නඩුවකට res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය අදාළ නොවන්නේ ද?

යම් අවස්ථාවලදී බෙදුම් නඩු සම්බන්ධයෙන් වන විට res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය අදාළ නොවන බවට වන මතයක් අප වෘත්තිය තුළ පවතින බව පෙනී යයි. නමුත් එය එසේ නොවේ. Res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය බෙදුම් නඩුවලදී ද අදාළ වේ. මේ සම්බන්ධව වැදගත් වන වගන්තිය වන්නේ බෙදුම් නීතියේ 75(1) වන වගන්තිය ය. එම වගන්තිය පහත පරිදි ය.

The dismissal of a partition action in respect of any land under section 9, section 12, section 29, section 62, section 65 or section 70 shall not operate as a bar to the institution of another partition action in respect of that land

මෙම වගන්තියේ දක්වා ඇති බෙදුම් නීතියේ අදාළ වගන්ති සියල්ල, බෙදුම් නඩුවක් විභාග නොකර නිෂ්ප්‍රභ කිරීමේ තීන්දුවක් ලබා දෙන අවස්ථා සඳහා අදාළ වන බව එම වගන්ති කියැවුවහොත් පෙනී යනු ඇත.75(1) වන වගන්තියට අනුව එවැනි අවස්ථාවක බෙදුම් නඩුවක් නිෂ්ප්‍රභ කරනු ලැබුවහොත් එය නව බෙදුම් නඩුවක් පැවරීමට බාධාවක් නොවේ. නමුත් එම වගන්ති අදාළ නොවන අවස්ථාවකදී බෙදුම් නඩුවක් නිෂ්ප්‍රභ කරනු ලැබීම හෝ නඩුවක් විභාග කොට තීන්දුවක් ලබා දී තිබීම දෙවන බෙදුම් නඩුව පැවරීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය අදාළ වන අවස්ථාවකි. තවත් අවස්ථාවක් ලෙස සිවිල් නඩු විධාන සංග්‍රහයේ 406 වගන්තිය පෙන්වා දිය හැක (නැවත නඩු පැවරීමේ අයිතිය නොතබා ගනිමින් නඩුවක් ඉල්ලා අස්කර ගැනීම). බෙදුම් නීතියේ 79 වගන්තිය මගින් ඒ සඳහා අවසර ලබා දෙයි.

මෙනිසා res judicata සිද්ධාන්තය බෙදුම් නඩුවකදී අදාළ නොවන්නේ යැයි කවුරුන් හෝ තර්ක කරන්නේ නම් එය නීතිය පිළිබඳව නිසි අවබෝධයක් නැතිව කරනු ලබන තර්ක කිරීමකි. මේ සම්බන්ධයෙන් විනිශ්චිත නඩු තීන්දු විශාල ප්‍රමාණයක් ඇති අතර ඉන් කීපයක් පමණක් පහතින් දක්වමි.

Abeysundera v. Babuna Et Al. - (1925) 26 NLR 459

Res judicata-Dismissal of partition action for non-prosecution

Subsequent action for partition of same land-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 5, 6, and 207.

The dismissal of a partition action for non-prosecution is no bar against & subsequent action for the partition of the same land.

Kandavanam Et Al. v. Kandaswamy Et Al. - (1955) 57 NLR 241

Civil Procedure-Claim by a defendant against a co-defendant for substantive relief- Jurisdiction of Court to entertain it.

Res judicata-Partition action-Withdrawal of action-Consent by some of the defendants-Failure to obtain leave to institute fresh action-Effect on rights of parties in a subsequent action-Civil Procedure Code, ss. 207, 406,

(i) The Civil Procedure Code does not empower a Court to entertain substantive claims for relief preferred by defendants inter se. Therefore, if A sues B for declaration of title to certain property and makes C, a co-owner, a party defendant in order to ensure a more complete and effectual adjudication of the issues arising in the action, C cannot, while supporting A's allegations against B, ask for a declaration of rights and an award of damages on his own account against B.

(ii) A instituted action No. 1 for the partition of a land on the basis that it was exclusively owned in common, from a common source of title, by him and the defendants one of whom was B. C intervened claiming for himself an undivided 2/9 share of the land. A decided to avoid a contest on the issue of C's claim. He, obtained, with B's consent, permission from the Court to " withdraw the action " but did not ask for liberty to institute a fresh action. Accordingly, the trial Judge entered a decree dismissing A's action with costs in favour of C.

About a year later the successors-in-title of B instituted action No. 2 against C in respect of the identical land claiming declaration of title to the 2/9 share which C had claimed in action No. 1. A was also joined in action No. 2 as a defendant in order to ensure a more complete and effectual adjudication of the issues arising in the action.

Held, (a) that the failure of A to obtain liberty under section 406 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring fresh proceedings at the time when he " withdrew " from the partition action (Action No. 1) was fatal to any fresh attempt by A to reagitate a claim which came into conflict with C's title to an undivided 2/9 share.

(b) that the plaintiffs in action No. 2, being privies of B who had consented to the unconditional withdrawal of action No. 1, were also precluded from asserting that the title which had passed to them from B prevailed over the title of C.

Giran Appuhamy v. Ariyasinghe - (1968) 70 NLR 553

Partition action-Inclusion, in plaint, of a land possessed dividedly by prescriptive possession-Alienation of that land pending the partition action-Validity- Partition Act, s. 67.

Res judicata-Opinion thereon of Judge who heard the earlier action-Irrelevancy.

(i) Where, in a partition action, a particular portion of land is excluded from the partition on the ground that some person or persons have title to it as a separate land, whether by prescriptive possession or otherwise, section 67 of the Partition Act does not render void dealings with that portion during the pendency of that action.

(ii) If a party to an action sets out a claim of title, and if a finding as to his title has to be reached, and is in fact reached, that finding is in law res judicata between the parties despite any opinion to the contrary expressed by the trial Judge.

Chellappah v. Selladurai - (1970) 76 NLR 310

Partition action- Withdrawal of it by the plaintiff- Right of a defendant or his successor in title to institute a fresh action- Res judicata- Scope of Civil Procedure Code, s.406.

In 1946 the plaintiff in a partition action was allowed by the Court to withdraw the action with liberty to file a fresh action, provided that costs were paid in term of the order. In fact those costs were paid. In November 1964 the present action for a partition of the same land was instituted by the successor in title of the 2nd defendant in the former action ; the defendants in the present action were persons who were either parties to the former action or successors in title of those parties.

Held, that the proceedings and decree in the former action could not operate as res judicata or as a bar to the claims of the present plaintiff and /or the successors in title of the plaintiff in the former action. Section 406 of the Civil Procedure Code could not prelude the institution of the present action.