This articvle is submitted by ASHNA ALEX .
Introduction
Law is an instrument which provides justice to the public irrespective of any grounds. In most of the cases, judiciary makes decisions based on precedents, certain doctrines and principles. As we know, in our country, the number of cases, being filed in the courts are increasing day by day. Moreover, litigation is a very time consuming and expensive process. Res judicata and Estoppel are similar concepts which helps the judiciary works efficiently, disposes of the case and thus reducing the burden of courts.
RES JUDICATA
The concept of res judicata has evolved from the English Common Law System. The Common Law system has been derived from the overriding concept of judicial consistency. Res judicata took its place first in the Code of Civil Procedure from Common Law and then into the Indian Legal System. Section 11 in PART 1 of the Civil Procedure Code explains the concept ‘ Res Judicata’.
Meaning
Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.
In simple words, the matter before a competent court has already been decided by another court and between the same parties. As a result of such resolution of the matter, the parties are restricted from filing the same case before the court again and again. Sometimes, it is common that the opposite party to the dispute files complaint again and again against the other party, in order to harass them or to get more compensation, even if the same case has been resolved by the court. But the concept of res judicata prevents the parties from doing so. Res judicata is a legal principle that refers to both civil and criminal cases. A suit that has been tried in a previous suit, either directly or indirectly, cannot be tried again.
According to ancient Hindu law, the concept called res judicata was previously referred to as Purva Nyaya or previous judgment by Muslim jurists and Hindu lawyers. The res judicata theory is based on the concepts of fairness, equity, and good faith
Emergence
The rule of res judicata has been originated from the three Roman maxims. The maxims are:
- Nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa – meaning that no person shall be punished or convicted twice for the same offence. This concept is similar to the concept of Double Jeopardy which is explained in the Constitution of India.
- Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium – meaning that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to the litigation. If it does not happen,it will be a harassment of court’s time and also harassment of other party which is not good for state
- Res judicata pro veritate accipitur – meaning that the decision of the court should be accepted by the parties and it must be considered as true and final.
Doctrine of res judicata
The res judicata doctrine states:
- That no one should be vexed or punished twice for the same issue.
- The State is the one that decides whether a case should be dismissed or not.
The correctness of a judicial decision must be acknowledged
Applicability
The applicability of Res judicata are as follows:
- It applies for both past as well as future litigation
- Its applicability also extends to question of law and question of fact which is decided.
- It applies only if the appeal was dismissed
- It applies only if no appeal has been taken with regard to the case or if the time period for appeal has been barred as per the Limitation Act
- It applies of no appeal lies i.e., if there is no opportunity for appeal itself
Case laws
One of the most important cases related to res judicata is Satgyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi[1].
In this case, the doctrine of Res judicata has been explained by Das Gupta J. in this as
“The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily, it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter- whether on a question of law or question of fact – has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again”
ESTOPPEL
The doctrine of estoppel is regarded as an equitable doctrine in law. This concept is similar to breach of contract, where a person is limited as per legal provisions from breaching a contract. Like any other laws, the intention behind this doctrine is to avoid injustice to the public.
Part III Chapter VII containing Sections 115 to Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the provisions relating to the Doctrine of Estoppel. Section 116 of the Act deals with estoppel of tenant and of licensee of persons in possession.
According to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, “When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”
Evolution of the Doctrine of Estoppel
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a newly developed concept. In early England cases the concept estoppel was not mentioned anywhere but raising equity. The ‘raising equity’ concept was for the first time raised by Lord Cairns in the case of Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Company[2]. The principle of equity also strongly recognized in Central London Properties Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd[3], by Lord Denning.
In India, we can see judgments where courts estopped government bodies by their promise. The courts are often seen to have applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel even against the government. And after these years this doctrine has been granted statutory recognition under the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Laws on the concept of estoppel
- The registrar, University of Madras v. Sundara Shetti And Ors [4]
In this case after receiving the SSLC pass certificate, a person joined college. But, later the registrar of University of Madras said that his name is not there in the gazette. But earlier his name was mentioned and he joined college on that and now they cannot deny his continuation of education in that college.
In this case, the court held that it has all the ingredients of Section 115 of the Indian evidence Act and as a result of that sundara shetty got his education continued in that college.
- Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai Kishori on 22 march 1928[5]
In this case, two minor brothers mortgaged their property representing themselves as majors. But we know, as per the Indian contract Act, 1872, contract made by the minors are void aba initio. The court decided that the same applies her as well, so there is no estoppel against the minor.
Conclusion
Both Res Judicata and Estoppel are the two different but similar concepts that are widely accepted throughout the world’s jurisdictions. As a result of that, the doctrines Res Judicata and Estoppel have gained prominence in Indian law. The doctrine of Res Judicata limits a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages from the defendant on the same injury more than once. In contrast, the Doctrine of Estoppel safeguards people from fraud or misrepresentation.
[1] 1960 AIR 941, 1960 SCR (3) 590
[2] [1887] 2 App Case 439
[3] [1947] KB 130
[4] [1956] 1 MLJ 25
[5] 30 BOMLR 1346
