Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from inventory proceedings initiated in 1945 following the death of Rosa Joaquina Luis De Souza, continued after the death of her husband in 1974. The respondent was appointed as Cabeca de Casal. Appellants, as interested parties, filed an application on 6 May 2016 seeking temporary injunction to restrain the Cabeca de Casal from alienating or encumbering estate properties, alleging she had not filed the list of assets for over five years and was mala fide delaying to enable dealings with third parties. Earlier, the same interested parties had filed a similar application on 18 November 2013, which was dismissed on 4 July 2014 on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown. Between that dismissal and the second application, no new acts or transactions by the Cabeca de Casal were brought on record. The trial court dismissed the second application, observing no new facts were pleaded. On appeal, appellants argued that the Cabeca de Casal had not listed all immovable properties, had executed deeds of relinquishment and gift, and an FIR had been registered. They relied on Madan Lal Khuteta v. Badri Narayan to contend a second application is not barred by res judicata. Respondents contended that no injunction was sought against the Cabeca de Casal, the application for her removal was rejected, and no transactions of sale were shown since the earlier rejection; thus, res judicata applied. The High Court, referring to Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi and Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, held that the principle of res judicata applies between two stages in the same litigation. The court noted that the appellants had invoked the jurisdiction again without any change in facts and circumstances. Since no new facts were brought to justify a fresh cause of action, the earlier decision on the same issue operated as res judicata. The court also observed that despite allegations, no attempt was made to remove the Cabeca de Casal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order rejecting the injunction was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Applicability between two stages of same litigation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 11 - The court considered whether a second application for temporary injunction filed by the same interested parties in the same inventory proceedings was barred by res judicata when the earlier application had been dismissed on merits and no new facts or changed circumstances were pleaded. The court held that the principle of res judicata applies not only between past and future litigation but also between two stages in the same litigation, and a court will not allow parties to re-agitate a matter already decided at an earlier stage unless new facts are shown. (Paras 9-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second application for temporary injunction on the same grounds is maintainable when an earlier application was dismissed and no new facts are pleaded; whether the principle of res judicata applies between two stages of the same litigation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's order rejecting temporary injunction upheld; no interference warranted as no new facts shown and principle of res judicata barred the second application.
Law Points
- res judicata applies between two stages of same litigation
- second temporary injunction application requires new facts or changed circumstances
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC
- Articles 405 and 406 of Portuguese Civil Code
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 96
Appeal from Order No. 60 of 2016
Shri Tarzan Da Costa (appellant in person), Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Korgaonkar
Tarzan Da Costa, Louella De Souza e Costa, Caetano Infancio De Souza
Maria Ivone De Souza Rodrigues
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Inventory proceedings concerning the estate of deceased persons.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought temporary injunction to restrain the Cabeca de Casal from alienating, encumbering, or dealing with estate properties.
Filing Reason
Allegation that Cabeca de Casal had not filed list of assets for over five years and was mala fide delaying to enable dealings with third parties.
Previous Decisions
Earlier application for temporary injunction by same interested parties dismissed on 4 July 2014; earlier application by Cabeca de Casal for precautionary measures also dismissed.
Issues
Whether the second application for temporary injunction is maintainable without new facts or changed circumstances
Whether the principle of res judicata applies between two stages of the same litigation to bar re-agitation of the same relief
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: Cabeca de Casal had not listed all immovable properties; she executed deeds of relinquishment/gift; there was interference and an FIR was registered; no list of assets was filed; impugned order erroneous.
Respondents: No injunction was sought against Cabeca de Casal; earlier application for removal was rejected; no transactions of sale shown since rejection; no new facts; principle of res judicata applies.
Ratio Decidendi
A second application for temporary injunction must be based on new facts or changed circumstances; otherwise, the principle of res judicata applies between two stages of the same litigation, barring re-agitation of the same issue.
Judgment Excerpts
It is a matter of record that the appellant no.1 herein as an interested party had sought for the relief of temporary injunction by his application dated 6.5.2016 alleging that the Cabeca de Casal had given her statement on oath but had not filed the list of assets for more than 5 years after her appointment as such and that she failed to do so even after the directions were issued to her by the Inventory Court compelling the appellant no.1 to disclose the assets and estate left behind by the deceased.
since then i.e 4.7.2014 till the subsequent application came to be filed, the interested parties did not at all show any acts carried out by the Cabeca de Casal to cause an alarm and precipitate the application for injunction and precautionary measures.
These judgments would apply on all fours to the present case inasmuch as the interested parties/appellants had invoke the jurisdiction of the Inventory Court once again to seek the equitable relief of injunction without any change in the facts and circumstances and therefore the principle of res-judicata would apply between the two stages in the same litigation.
Procedural History
Inventory proceedings initiated in 1945 upon death of Rosa Joaquina Luis De Souza and continued after death of Emidio Simao Ismael de Souza in 1974. Various deeds executed by family members. Appellant No.1 as interested party filed application for temporary injunction on 18 November 2013, dismissed on 4 July 2014. Second application dated 6 May 2016 also dismissed by trial court. Appeal from order filed before High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Portuguese Civil Code: Articles 405 and 406
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 11
