108-NLR-NLR-V-22-PUSAMA-v.-SENDELIYA-et-al.pdf
( 364 )
1920.
Present: Schneider A. J.PUSAMA v. SEND ELI Y A el al.
11— G. R. Matale, 13,021.
Action in Village Tribunal for damages, being value of a half share ofa orop of a field—Defence of forfeiture of rights by diga marriage—Subsequent action in Gowt of Requests between same parties fordeclaration of title—Rea judicata—Estoppel—Land over Rs. 20in value.
The defendants, who were the children of plaintiff's sister (W),sued the plaintiff in the Village Tribunal, claiming damages as thevalue of the half share of a crop of a field which they claimed byright of inheritance. The plaintiff denied defendants’ title, andalleged that W had forfeited her rights to her paternal inheritanceby marrying out in diga. The Village Tribunal held that W wasnot married in diga, and entered judgment for the defendants. Ina subsequent action in the Village Tribunal between the sameparties for a similar share of the crop the plaintiff consented tojudgment. The plaintiff brought this action in the Court ofRequests for declaration of title to the land. The defendantspleaded res judicata and estoppel.
Held, that both pleas were bad, as the value of the land wasover R«. 20.
“The Village Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try an issuein regard to the title to the land, nor even to try the issue as towhether W wasmarriedin diga, because that issue is only incidentalto the real issue between the parties as to the title to the land.”
r | 'HE facts appear from the judgment.
Bartholomeusz, for defendants, appellants.
Arvlanandan, for the plaintiff, respondent.
July 9,1920. Schneider A.J.—
In this case the plaintiff sought to vindicate title to the whole ofa field called Gedaragawakumbura, He pleaded that it belongedto his father Rankira, who had seven children, including himself.
( 365 )
One of these children was Watu, a daughter, who, he said, had beengiven out in diga, and had thereby forfeited he? rights to his land.Another child of Rankira was Malkenda, who died in 1917 childless.The defendants are the children of the woman Watu. They saythat their mother died about six years before the present action,and that plaintiff began to dispute their title only after the deathof Malkenda in 1917. It is in evidence that in October, 1917, thedefendants brought an action in the Village Tribunal against theplaintiff, claiming damages as the value of their half share of thecrop of this field which they alleged plaintiff had wrongfully appro-priated. This plaintiff, who was a defendant in that action,denied that the defendants in this action were entitled to any sharein thai land on the ground that their mother had been given outin diga. An issue was framed bn that question, and the VillageTribunal gave judgment in favour of the defendants, holding thattheir mother had not been married out in diga. A second actionwas brought in the Village Tribunal, also by these defendantsagainst the present plaintiff, claiming again a half share of the cropof the field. The plaintiff consented to judgment in favour of thedefendants. This was in 1918. The present action was broughtby the plaintiff in September, 1918. The defendants pleaded thatthe judgments in the two Village Tribunal oases were res judicata,and barred the plaintiff from denying their title to the field in thepresent action. They also pleaded that the admission by theplaintifiin the later case in the Village Tribunal estopped him fromdenying their title in the present case. The learned Commissionerhas held against the defendants’ contention, both on the questionof res judicata and of estoppel. He has done so rightly in myopinion. The defendants* who are the appellants, contended onappeal that those two judgments are res judicata, and cited asauthority- the case of Dingiri Menika v. Punchi Mahatmaya.1 I donot think that case is in point. There the decision which waspleaded as res judicata was that of a competent Court in regard toa matter which it tried and had jurisdiction to try. In the earlierone of the Village Tribunal cases, which the appellants rely upon tosupport their contention, the defendant denied the plaintiff’s title,and it is in evidence that the value of the land even at that time wasover Rs. 301). It is, therefore,clear that the Village Tribunal had nojurisdiction to try an issue in regard to the title to the land, noreven to try the issue as to whether Watu was married in diga,because that issue is only incidental to the real issue between theparties as to the title to the land. This case is covered by thedecision in Puncha v. Sethuhamy?
[His Lordship then discussed the facts.]
Appeal allowed.
1920.
ScHNBttDER
A.J.
Pueama v,Sendeliyd '
1 (1910) 13 N. L. R. 59.
*(1916) 19 N. L. R. 217.