This article is written by Sonakshi Maity, a post graduate of Haldia Law College, pursued LLM interning at Le Droit India.
ABSTRACT
This article states the fundamental distinction between the doctrines of Res Judicata and Estoppel. Res Judicata focuses on preventing relitigation and Estoppel focuses on preventing contradictory statements or actions, they operate in distinct spheres. Res Judicata bars court from hearing the case already decided by a competent court and ensuring it’s the final decision in litigation whereas estoppel prevents a party from taking a contradictory position to protect the other party’s reliance. Through distinction, the article clearly clarifies how each doctrine functions within the legal system and highlights their practical implication for litigants and the administration of justice.
Keywords: Res Judicata, Estoppel, Finality of Judgements, Rule of Evidence, Litigation, Public Policy.
INTRODUCTION
Res judicata and Estoppel are distinct legal doctrines with different scopes and applications. Res judicata prevents a party from re-litigating a claim that has already been decided by a court. Estoppel, on the other hand, is a rule of evidence that prevents a party from contradicting a previous statement or action. Res judicata is based on public policy to prevent multiple lawsuits on the same issue and Estoppel is based on principles of equity, justice and good conscience.
Example– If a court rules against a plaintiff in a contract dispute, res judicata prevents the plaintiff from suing the same defendant again on the same disputed contract.
In the case of Estoppel, if a party initially represented to another party that they owned certain property and the other party relied on that representation, the first party would be estopped later from claiming that they didn’t own the property. This article explores the essential differences between res judicata and estoppel.
MEANING OF RES JUDICATA
Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the same case from being relitigated between the same parties once it has been decided by a court with competent jurisdiction. This legal doctrine is designed to prevent duplication of legal proceedings and conserve judicial resources. Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.
In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue before a court has already been decided by another court and between the same parties. Therefore, the court will dismiss the case as it has been decided by another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and criminal cases.
Example- A, a person who sue his neighbour because their tree fell on A’s fence and damaged it. The court decides A’s neighbour has to pay for the damage. That’s final decision. Now A can’t sue his neighbour again for the same mistake.
MEANING OF ESTOPPEL
Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a person from claiming a defence that is contrary to what they have previously stated, agreed upon or expressed by their conduct. It is based on principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Estoppel offers to maintain consistency and integrity in legal dealings and interactions.
Example- Rahul promised his friend that he will give him his old bike. Later, he changed his mind and said he never promised his friend about his old bike. Because his friend relied on promise and got excited about the bike, he can’t deny it. That’s estoppel.
RES JUDICATA UNDER CPC
Section 11 of the CPC states that, once a court has decided a matter between parties, the same issue cannot be re-litigated between the same parties in any court. The courts are barred from entertaining suits in which the matter directly and substantially at issue has already been finally decided by another court in a previous suit. Section 11 of the CPC prevents parties from being harassed by multiple lawsuits on the same issue.
The doctrine of Res Judicata is originated from 3 Roman maxims:
1) Nemo debet lis vaxari eadem causa- It means that no person should be vexed annoyed, harassed or vexed two times for the same cause;
2) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium- It means that it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end of litigation; and
3) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur- Decision of the court should be adjudged as true.
CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA
Section 11 of the CPC represents this doctrine, which prohibits a party from raising pleas in a subsequent proceeding that could have been raised in an earlier one involving the same parties and the same matter. So, certain conditions must be met to invoke the principle of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC.
- Firstly, the parties involved in both proceedings must be the same.
- Secondly, the subject matter of the subsequent proceeding must be identical to that of the earlier proceeding.
- Thirdly, the issue raised in the subsequent proceeding should have been directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceeding.
- Lastly, the earlier proceeding must have resulted in a final decision on the basis of the merits.
RES JUDICATA LANDMARK CASES IN INDIA
- In the case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh, petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution but the suit was dismissed. Then they filed independent petitions in the Supreme Court under the writ jurisdiction of Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court held that the rule of Res Judicata applies to a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- In the case of Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, B challenged the validity of an order of assessment under Article 226. The petition was dismissed on the basis of merits. The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal that was made against the order on the basis of merits. B again filed another writ petition in the same High Court against the same order of assessment. The High Court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that this petition was barred by the principle of res judicata.
- Avtar Singh v. Jagjit Singh, A filed a civil suit, a contention regarding the arbitration of the Court was taken by B. The objection was sustained and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for the presentation. The Revenue Court did not have any jurisdiction when A filed the suit so the petition was returned to A. Again A filed a suit in the Civil Court. B contented that the suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- Mathura Prasad v. Dossabai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, it was held that res judicata constitutes between the parties to the previous case and cannot move again in collateral proceedings.
ESTOPPEL UNDER BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023
Section 121 to 123 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 deals with Estoppel. Estoppel refers to a legal principle that prevents a person from alleging facts which are contrary to his past claims or actions. In simple words, estoppel means one cannot contradict, deny or declare to be false the previous statement made by him. The object of estoppel is to prevent fraud and secure justice between parties by promotion of honesty and good faith.
- In Mohammad Imdadullah v.Mt. Bismillah, Mohammed acquired a piece of land in order to construct a school. For many years, he made others believe that he has been carrying out this work under the authority of some other school. When he wanted to transform the school and make it an orphanage, the court estopped him from doing so.
- In Sanatan Gauda v. Bharampur University, the student took admission in a law college and successfully completed his two years. Later, the university objected to release his result of the pre and intermediate examination on the ground that he is ineligible to do so. The student had submitted all of his documents at the time of his admission and also obtained the admit card for the final examination. The court declared that the university would be stopped from doing so i.e. declaring the result of that student.
- In State of Maharashtra v. Anita, the court upheld that once the person has been appointed as an employee under a contract and has accepted all its terms and conditions, he would be stopped if later he challenges the appointment.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA
Res judicata and estoppel are both legal doctrines that prevent parties from re-litigating issues but they differ in their scope and application.
- Res judicata applies to the entire claim or cause of action. It prevents the same parties from relitigating the same claim that has already been decided by a court. Whereas Estoppel prevents a party from taking a position that contradicts their prior conduct or statements. It applies to specific facts or issues within a case not the entire claim.
- Estoppel flows from the act of parties whereas res judicata is the result of the decision of the court.
- In the case of estoppel, it is the person who is estopped, whereas in the case of res judicata it is the court that ceases to have jurisdiction.
- Res judicata prohibits a person alleging the same thing twice in the litigations and estoppel prevents the person from saying two opposite things at a time.
- Res judicata doctrine was created to protect public policy by ending the litigation i.e. prohibits the filing of multiple lawsuits. In contrast, estoppel is based on equity principles and therefore prohibits multiple representations.
- The effect of res judicata is binding on both litigants because both parties have approached a subsequent court for the same matter. So, res judicata applies to both parties. The effect of estoppel is binding on the party who made the previous statement or conduct and only that person will be held responsible.
- Sections 121 to 123 of the BSA, 2023 deals with the principle of Estoppel. The rule regarding res judicata is laid down under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
- Estoppel can arise at any stage of legal proceedings or even before litigation begins. Res judicata applies after a final judgement has been passed by a court.
- Estoppel is often used in contractual disputes, real estate transactions, and other civil matters whereas Res judicata is used in civil litigation to prevent repetition of lawsuits.
- The remedy for estoppel is preventing a party from alleging a particular claim or defence. In res judicata the remedy is the finality of the judgement i.e. preventing further litigation on the same matter.
CONCLUSION
While both res judicata and estoppel serve as crucial doctrines in the field of law to prevent injustice and promote judicial efficiency but their applications and scope are distinct. Doctrines of Res judicata and Estoppel have gained prominence in Indian Law. As a result, the Doctrine of Res judicata prevents party from re-litigation and filing of multiple lawsuits. The Doctrine of Estoppel safeguards people from fraud or misrepresentation by promotion of good faith and honesty. The both Doctrines are beneficial for people in India.
REFERENCES
