# 1P61 S1;temher a. Mst. Guiab Bai v. II atiflhoot Bai - **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 483 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. GAJENDRAGADJLl.R, Raghubar Dayal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1p61-s1-temher-a-mst-guiab-bai-v-ii-atiflhoot-bai-2455 - **Pages:** 14 ## Headnote Res Judicata-'Suit', Meaning of-If can denote part of a suit or an issue in it-Code of Oi.~l Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), s. 11. · The respondent had sued the appellant 2 on a rent note in the Munsiff's court for recovery of Rs. 700/- as arrears of rent and' ejectment. That suit was dismissed on the preliminary objection of defect of party as appellant 1, a co· lessor in the rent note, had not been made a party. The respondent then brought the present suit in the Civil Judge's court for recovery of Rs. 2400 as arrears of rent from and for ejectment of appellant 2, maki.ng appellant 1 a pro-forma defendant in the suit. The appellant 2 pleaded that the su:t was barred by res judicata and could not be decreed since appellant l had not joined 'the responclenc in the clai1n. The High Court, iri finally decreeing the suit in second app~al, .held· that it was not barred by res judicata since the Munsiff had not the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and that appellant I on a true construction of the. rent note, .was not a a co-lessor with the respondent. It was urged on behalf of the appellants in this Court that the word 'suit' in s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be liberally, and not literally, construed so as to include part of the suit or an issue ;961 Bluizwan D'J14l v • • \f.st. '.Beo# Der1i Subia 11., J. 1P61 S1;temher a. Mst. Guiab Bai v. II atiflhoot Bai -- 484 SUl'REi\IE COURT REPORTS [1962] raised in the suit and that since the MunsiiT \vj10 had tried the previous suit was competent to try that part of the subsequent suit \ ... ·h1ch forn1P.d the relevant issue in the earlier suit the present suit \\·as barred by res judica/a. ' Heid, that the High Court was right in hold in~ that tLe present suit was not barred by r'!.s judicata. ·- The \\·ord 'suit' occurring in s. 11 of the Code of Civil Proccdt1rc mu~c be literally, and not liberally, construed so as to mean the entire suit and not a part of it or an issue arising in ic. The le,;islative history of that ;ection clearly shows that thrrc is no scope fur any liberal construction of that \\'Ord. Durliess of King•lon's case, 2 Smith Lead. Cas. 13th Ed. 644, .l!i•ir Rag!1obardial '" Rajah /:,'/,eQ Baksi. Singh, ( 1882) LR. 9 I.A. 197 and Gokul ManJar '" l'udmanund Singh, (1902) J.L.R. 29 Cal. 707, discussed. Mussamut Bdun '" MusMmut Bahun, 8 W.R. 175, liam Dayal \'.Janlcida.s, (1900) I.LR. 24 Born. 45G, Shibo Raul '" Baban Raul, (l!J08) 1.L.R. 35 Cal. 353, referred to. Sh,ikh .Haqaood Ali v. !I. llunter, A.l.R. 19{3 Oudh. 338, considered. C1nL APPELLATE JomsDICTIO:\ : Civil Appeal No. 201/HJ50. Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated January 2, 1952, of tho Rajasthan High Court in D. R. Civil Second Appeal No. 459 of 1949. S. N. A.ndlcy, Rameshu-ar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. N. C. Cltatte1jee and .!If ohan Belwri ],al, for respondent. 1961. September 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGAllKAn, J.-This appeal by a certificate given by the Raja;; than High Con rt arises fron~ the suit filed by the respondent. l\Ist. ~fanphool Bat against appellant 2 Lacln Ram for the recovery of the arrears of rent and for eojectment. To this Ruit the respondent joined appellant l lier motherin-law Guiab Bai as a proforma defendant. 'fhe property in question is a shop situated in the Johri Bazar at Jaipur. This property originally belonged to Chhogalal, ancl after him it devolved on his f. . "' l '· • - 3 S.C.R. SUPREMECOURT REPORTS 48fi adopted son.Phool Chand. The case for the respon· dent is that her husband Lal Chand had been adopt· ed by appellant 1 after the death of her husband Phool Chand. Appellant 2 had executed a rent nQte (Ex. 24) in favour of Lal Chand in Samvat.Year 1939. On Lal Chand's death the respondent held the property as his widow and as such she served !)< notice on appellant 2 on May 31, 1938, calling upol). him to pay the arrears of rent due from him a,nd asking him to vacate the shop (Ex. 16). It a.ppe ## Text { 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS The concept of joint tenancy known to Ehglish law .with the right of survivorship is unknown to Hindu law except in regard to cases specially recognized by it. In the present case, the uncle and the two nephews did not belong to the same branch. The acquisitions made by them jointly could not be impressed with the incidents of joint family property. They can only be co-sharers or co-tenants, with the result that their properties passed by inheritance and not by survivorship. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismiss~d. MST. GULAB BAI v . . MANPHOOL BAI (B. P. SINHA, C. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADJLl.R and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Res Judicata-'Suit', Meaning of-If can denote part of a suit or an issue in it-Code of Oi.~l Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), s. 11. · The respondent had sued the appellant 2 on a rent note in the Munsiff's court for recovery of Rs. 700/- as arrears of rent and' ejectment. That suit was dismissed on the preliminary objection of defect of party as appellant 1, a co· lessor in the rent note, had not been made a party. The respondent then brought the present suit in the Civil Judge's court for recovery of Rs. 2400 as arrears of rent from and for ejectment of appellant 2, maki.ng appellant 1 a pro-forma defendant in the suit. The appellant 2 pleaded that the su:t was barred by res judicata and could not be decreed since appellant l had not joined 'the responclenc in the clai1n. The High Court, iri finally decreeing the suit in second app~al, .held· that it was not barred by res judicata since the Munsiff had not the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and that appellant I on a true construction of the. rent note, .was not a a co-lessor with the respondent. It was urged on behalf of the appellants in this Court that the word 'suit' in s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be liberally, and not literally, construed so as to include part of the suit or an issue ;961 Bluizwan D'J14l v • • \f.st. '.Beo# Der1i Subia 11., J. 1P61 S1;temher a. Mst. Guiab Bai v. II atiflhoot Bai -- 484 SUl'REi\IE COURT REPORTS [1962] raised in the suit and that since the MunsiiT \vj10 had tried the previous suit was competent to try that part of the subsequent suit \ ... ·h1ch forn1P.d the relevant issue in the earlier suit the present suit \\·as barred by res judica/a. ' Heid, that the High Court was right in hold in~ that tLe present suit was not barred by r'!.s judicata. ·- The \\·ord 'suit' occurring in s. 11 of the Code of Civil Proccdt1rc mu~c be literally, and not liberally, construed so as to mean the entire suit and not a part of it or an issue arising in ic. The le,;islative history of that ;ection clearly shows that thrrc is no scope fur any liberal construction of that \\'Ord. Durliess of King•lon's case, 2 Smith Lead. Cas. 13th Ed. 644, .l!i•ir Rag!1obardial '" Rajah /:,'/,eQ Baksi. Singh, ( 1882) LR. 9 I.A. 197 and Gokul ManJar '" l'udmanund Singh, (1902) J.L.R. 29 Cal. 707, discussed. Mussamut Bdun '" MusMmut Bahun, 8 W.R. 175, liam Dayal \'.Janlcida.s, (1900) I.LR. 24 Born. 45G, Shibo Raul '" Baban Raul, (l!J08) 1.L.R. 35 Cal. 353, referred to. Sh,ikh .Haqaood Ali v. !I. llunter, A.l.R. 19{3 Oudh. 338, considered. C1nL APPELLATE JomsDICTIO:\ : Civil Appeal No. 201/HJ50. Appeal from tho judgment and decree dated January 2, 1952, of tho Rajasthan High Court in D. R. Civil Second Appeal No. 459 of 1949. S. N. A.ndlcy, Rameshu-ar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. N. C. Cltatte1jee and .!If ohan Belwri ],al, for respondent. 1961. September 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGAllKAn, J.-This appeal by a certificate given by the Raja;; than High Con rt arises fron~ the suit filed by the respondent. l\Ist. ~fanphool Bat against appellant 2 Lacln Ram for the recovery of the arrears of rent and for eojectment. To this Ruit the respondent joined appellant l lier motherin-law Guiab Bai as a proforma defendant. 'fhe property in question is a shop situated in the Johri Bazar at Jaipur. This property originally belonged to Chhogalal, ancl after him it devolved on his f. . "' l '· • - 3 S.C.R. SUPREMECOURT REPORTS 48fi adopted son.Phool Chand. The case for the respon· dent is that her husband Lal Chand had been adopt· ed by appellant 1 after the death of her husband Phool Chand. Appellant 2 had executed a rent nQte (Ex. 24) in favour of Lal Chand in Samvat.Year 1939. On Lal Chand's death the respondent held the property as his widow and as such she served !)< notice on appellant 2 on May 31, 1938, calling upol). him to pay the arrears of rent due from him a,nd asking him to vacate the shop (Ex. 16). It a.ppeare that soon thereafter on August 27,1938, appellant 2 executed a rent note in favour of the respondent (Ex. 21) but apparently appellant 2 failed to pay the rent regularly and so on January 17, 1939, the respondent had to sue appellant 2 for arrea,rs of rent due and for ejectment. This suit was filed in the Court of Munsiff, East Jaipur. The amount due by way of arrears which was claimed, in. that suit was Rs. 700/·. Appellant 2 resisted ;the said claim made by the respondent mainly on the ground that the rent note on which the si1it was based had been executed by appellant 2 in favour of the res· pondent and her mother.in-law and that the suit was defective for want of a n:emwsary party foas, muoh as thP mother· in-law had not been joined to it. Appellant 2 claimed that the respondent, acting by herself, was not entitled to chim either the arrears or to ask for ejectment. Incidentally. he pleaded that the rent in question had been paid by him to the respondent's mother-in-law Guiab Bai. This litfgation went up to the Jaipur Chief Court in second appeal. All the Courts upheld the principal plea raised by appelhnt 2 that Gulab Bai was a necessary party to the suit and so on the preliminary ground that for non-joinder of the necessary party the suit was defective the claim made by the respondent was rejected. The decision of the Chief Court was pronounced on May 26, 1941. It was under these circumstances that the respondent filed the present suit on November 15; 1943, in the Court of Civil Judge, Sawai Jaipur, claiming to 1961 Mst. Gulab Bat. v. ManjJhool Bai Gajeri"iragarlka'r], 1961 ~st. Gula\ Ba; V, JI a!tphool Bai (J_ajtn4rozadkor J. 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] recover Rs. 2,400/- as arrears from appellant 2 and asking for his ejectmcnt from the suit premises; and as we have alrcadv stated the respondent imp leaded appellant I as· a proforma defendant to this suit. Several pleas were raised by appellant 2 against the claim made by the respondent. In the present appeal, howe\·er, we are concemed only with two of these pleas. It was urged by appellant 2 that the present suit was barred by res jud·icata and so since appellant 1 had not joined the respondent in making the claim tlw suit was incompetent. It wqs also urged in the alternative that on the merit~ it should be held that tho rent note had been exeeuted by appellant 2 in favour of two lessors, appellant I and the respondent. The trial court rejected thcRe pleas and pa~scd a decree in favour of the respondent and against both the appellants for Rs.1,800/-. It also directed appellant 2 to vacate the. premises by the end of ~1nrch, 1948, foiling which the respondent was gi vcn a right to cxPcute the decree against him. Against this decree both the appellants preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge. Tho learnecl District Judge held that the respondent's suit was barred by res judicata and so he allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondent's suit. Then tho matter reached the Rajast.han High Court at the instance of the respondent in second appeal. Tho High Court has reversed the conclusion of th" District Court on the quest ion of res judiwta and has held that the present suit was not barrccl by res judfr,,1ta. On tho construction of the rent note t.hc High Court has helcl that the rent note on which the suit is based was passed by appellant 2 in fa\·our of the respondent and that the reforenee to the name of appellant 1 in the said rent note docs not constitut€ her into a co-lessor with the respondent. On these findings the decree passecl by the District Court has been reversed and that of the trial court has bct'n restorcrl. The appellants then moved the Rajasthan High l - ·, k - i ,. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME OOtJRTlREPORTS 487 Court for a certificate and a 'certificate has been granted to them principally on the ground that the question of res judicata which the. appellants seek to raise is a question of general importance. It is with this certificate that the appellants have come to this Court by their present appeal. · · · · .. Pending the appeal appellant 1 Gulab. Bai died on April 19, 1959. Thereupon an application. was made by appellant 2 and Dhaμ Kum11.r who claims to have been adopted by Gufab Bai in. her lifetime applied for a certificate declaring tha,t Dhan Kumar was the heir and legal rppresE;n.tative of appellant L The High Court refused. to grant the certificate on the groimd that the deceased appellant l was merely a pro f orma defendant to the suit and since no relief had been claimed against her the High Court thought that her death did not cause any defect in the record in the. appeal preferred to this Court and all that was needed to be done was to remove her name from the cause title. The High Court also he~d that Dhan Kumar may seek his remedy by a proper suit if he so desired. Dhan Kumar and appellant 2 then applied to this Court (Civil Miscellaneous ·Petition No. 267 of 1961) for substitution .of Dhan Ku'{l'tar in the place of deceased appellant l. The respondent objects to the introducti.on of the name of Dhan Kumar on the record in place of the deceased appellant I. It is urged on her behalf that Gulah Bai had no authority to make an adoption and in: fact had made no adoption as alleged by Dhau Kumar. In ordinary course we might have called. for findings on issues .arising between the parties on this application, but since the matter is yery old we do not wish to give it a further lease of ·life by adopting that course. We have, therefore, all.owed Dhan Kumar to join the present proceedings with: out deciding the question as to the factum or validity of his alleged adoption. We may also add that the question about the factum, and validity of the adoption of the-respondent's husband Lal Chand was also put in issue in the Courts below and in fact 1961 Mst. Gui.ab Bai' " v. M anp:hoof ·'Bili Gtzje'ndT~gaikar· ·· J. 1'61 Mst. C:rda6 Bai. •• Mllll/Jhool Bai Cajt1ulrqa_dloar ]. 488 SlJPR.EME COURT REPORTS [1962} the District CJurt had mado a finding against Lal Chand's adoption. Tho High Court thought it unnecessary to decide this mattor. Thus ~.ho re is .a dispute between Dhan Kumar and tho respondent on two gronods: Dhan Kumar seeks to cha.llengo the foctum and validity of Lal Chand's. adoption, whereas the. respondent seeks to challengo the factum and 'l"alidity of Dhan Kumar's adoption. Both these points have not been considered by tis, and so the parties would bo at liborty to agitate them in proper proceedings ifthcy nre so advised.· In the present appeal we propose to consider only two points, one of res jwlicata and the other about the construction of the rent note. Tho decision of the question of res judicata lies within a very narrow compass. The rcliwaut facts necessary to decide that point are not in disputo. It is clear that in the earlier lit.igation it was hold by the Jaipur Chief Court that tho rent note in question had been executed in favour of both appellant I and the rc~pondont and that necessarily meant that appellant 2 was a tenant of the two co-lessors. It. WM also held that the mspondent acting by herself alone was not entitled to elaimm.rrears of rent or t-0 ask for ejcctment, 10 that if the decision of the said issue can operate as res judicata the present suit would be clearly barred. On the other hand, it is conceded by the appelhnts that the l\Iunsiff who tried the earlier suit was not competent t-0 try the pr<>sent suit having regard to the limits of his pecuniary jurisdiction, and so one of the conditions prcscrib· ed by s.11 of tho Code of Ci,·il Procedure is absent. Section 11 requires, inter ali:a, that the prior dcciRion of the material issue should haYe been given by a court competent t-0 try tho subsequent suit, and that is tho basis on which tho respondent ha.s aucceilSfully urged before the High Court that the pica of res j11dicatr1 cannot be sustained. It has been urged before us by l\Ir. Rameshwar Nath that in construing the material clause in s.11 the ' ,, • ~ ·i I 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 489 High Court was in error in putting a literal construeI9GI tion on the words "subsequent suit". The High Court M•t. Guiab Bai should have construed the said words liberally and v. should have held that the words "suit" in~ludes Manphool Bai even a part of a suit. If this contention is right Gaj.adrngadkar J. then the relevant issue decided in the earlier litigation would be a part of the subsequent snit, and since the Mnnsiff who tried the earlier suit, was competent to try this part of the subsequent suit the requisite condition is satisfied and the suit is thus barred by res judicata. Thus the narrow question which calls for our decision is whether the word "suit" in the context can be liberally construed to mean even a part of the suit. Let us first read s.l l. which runs thus : "No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them, claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent. to try such subsequent suit or the suit in' which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court." The appellant's argument is that in construing the chuse "in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which issue has been su bsequently raised" it would be relevant to remember that this clause is really intended to emphasise the consideration that the Court which tried the earlier suit and the Court in which the subsequent suit is filed ghould be Courts of concurrent jurisdiction, and the concurrence of jurisdiction should be tested by reference to the matter in issue which has been tried in the earlier suit and which also falls to be decided in the subseq1nnt suit. In support of this argument reliance has been placed on the classical statement of the general princ.iple of res judicata • ·1~61 M sl. Cul al liai v. ManpMol Bai Gojtndratlllikar J. .. , T .. . ... . . "!' ~- ..... 490 f1962J enomciated in the Dnche..ss of Kingsto1~'s case('). In that oaso it was observed that from the variety of Ca.BPS relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suiti;, these two deductions seem·to follow as generally true : "Firnt, that the judgment <>fa Court of concurrnnt jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as cvidonce, conclusive between the same parties, upon the Rame matter, directly i.J1 question, in another Court, secondly, thnt the judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is in like manner conclusivti upon the ·same ·matter, between the same partiC!l, coming incidenmll~, in queition in another Court for a different purpose". The basis of the rule of res judicata .is that. an individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause, and the libPral 'construction of tho word "suit" would be consistent with ·this bal!is, otherwise if tho competonoo of the ealilier Court is ;going to be judged by reforence to itti eompctenee to try the entire Ru it as subsequently instituted, in many cases where the matter directly and substantially in issue has been tried between the parties by the earlier Court it may have to he tried again.in a &ubsequont suit because the earlier Court had no jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit l1aving regard to it11 .pecuniary jurisdiction. That, it is urged, would be anomalous and inconsistent with the prinoi1ile underlying the doctrine of res judicata. The word "suit" has not been defined in the Code, but there can .be little doubt ·that in the r.ontnxt the •plain and grammatioal meaning of the word would include 'the whole of the euit and not a part of tho suit, so that 1iiving the word 'fsuit'' its ordinatiy meaning .it woukl be difficult to·aeccpt the argumont that a pa.rt of the suit or an issue in a suit iR int~nded to bo covered by the saiil word in ·the matj)rial clause. J'hc argument that thoro should be finality of decisions and,thnt a 11erson ii) 2 Smith Lead. Cas., 13th Ed., 'PP·:6H,.645. t ' .... ! 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 491 should not be vexed twice over with the same cause can have no material bearing on the construction of the· word "suit". Besides if considerations of anomaly are relevant it may be urged in support of the literal construction of the word "suit" that the finding recorded· on a material issue by the Coul't of the lowest jurisdiction is intended not to bar the trial of the same issue in a sn bsequent suit filed before a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would itself introduce another kind of anomaly. Therefore, it seems to us that as a matter of construction the suggestion that the word "suit'' should be liberally construed cannot be accepted; This position would be abundantly clear if we consider the legislative history·and· background of s. lh In that connection it would be relevant to cite the material provisions in regard to re& jiulicata. contained in the earlier Codes. Section 2 which dealt with res judicata in the Code of 1859 (Act VIII. of 1859) read thus : "The Civil Courts shall not take cognisance of any suit brought on a cause of action which, shall h:we been heard and determined by a. Couro of competent jurisdiction in a fomner suit: bctw-0en the same parties or between parties under whom they claim." In the Code of 1877 (Act X of 1877) s. 13· provided' that "no Court shall1try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and sulistantially in issue has been heard· and finally decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction; in a former suit between the same parties, .or· between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title". Then followed the Code of 1882 (Act XIV ofl882) in which s. l'3 doa,lt with the principle of es judicata. Section 13 is stlbstantially in the same erms as s. 11 of the present Code of 1908 ( .A:ct V f 1908). ' ! j 1H1 .;.'\1. st. GuJab B4i v. M anp/w6l Bili Gaj1ndratadkar J, 1961 JJ.Jt. Guiab Bai v. M~11plt,1.1ol Bai G•j1ndra111dlr.Q1 ). .... , ....• It ' - • ;.. ~' $ • ::\·- . 5 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19132] The question about the construction of the word "competent jurisdiction" occurring in s. 2 of the Cocle of 1859 as well as s. 13 of the Code of 1877 foll to be considered in Jfisir Raghobardial v. R,~jah Shoo Baksh Singh('). In that case the Privy Council took the \•iew that the expression "c<'lllP"tcnt jurisr.lirtion" must be taken to mean competent jurisdictilln as regards the pecuniary limit as well as the subject-matter, and they pointed out that if the pccl!niary limit of jurisdiction was ignored it woukl lead to the anomalous consequence that "the decision of a Munsiff upon (for instance) tho validity of a will, or of an adoption, iu a suit for a small port.ion of tho proprrty affected hv it, should be conclusive in a suit bofore a Distriet ,Judge or in the High Court, for property of a large amount, the title to which might depend upon the will or the adoption". The judgment further pointed out tlmt "in India there arc a large num bcr of Courts, and the one main feature in tha Act constituting them is that they arc of various grades with different pecl!niary limits oi jurisdiction; and that bv 1he Code of Procedure a suit must he institut~d in the Comt of the lowest grade competent to try it". That being so, unless the coucept of competent jurisdiction included considerations of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court it would inevitably mean that :1 fmding recorded by a Court of the lowest pecuniary jurisdiction 011 an issue arising in a suit before it would bind tho parties in a subsequent suit where the claim involved may be Ycry much higher. It would thus be seen that in dording with s. 2 of tho Code of 185!) the Privy Council introduced the notion of concurrent jurisdiction though the words used in the section were a Court of competent jurisdiction, and it was held that the jurisdiction must be concurrent as regards the pecuniary limit as well as the subject-matter. This deeision proceeded on the as~umption that "in order to (I) (1882) L. R. 91. A. 197. ' ' • ( 3 S.C.R. SU1'REME COURT REPORTS 493 make the decision of one Court final a.nd conclusive in another Court, it must be a decision of a Court which would have had jurisdiction over the matter in the subsequent suit in which the first decision is given in evidence as conclusive" [ vide : Mussamut Edun v. Mussamut Bechun(1)]. Having thus interpreted the expression "competent jurisdiction" the Privy Council proceeded to consider whether any change in the law was intended to be effected by 1. 13 of the Code of 1877 ; and they observed that the intention of the said section "seems to have been to embody in the Code of Procedure by ss. 12 and 13 the law then in force in India instead of the imperfect provision in s. 2 of the Code of 1859", and they added that "as the words in the section do not clearly show an intention to alter the law their Lordships do not think it right to put a construction upon them which would cause an alteration." It would thus be seen that this decision i11 an authority for the proposition that the rule of res judicata as interpreted even under the Code of 1877 was held to be the same as it obtained under the Code of .1859 as interpreted by the Privy Counsel in the light of the general considerations as to res judicata, enunciated in the case of Duchess of Kingston('). This position has been clearly stated in 1mother decision of the Privy Council in Gokul Mandar v. l'udmanund Singh('). On this occasion the Privy Council had to consider the effect of e. 13 of the Code of 1882. The argument which was urged before the Privy Council on s. 13 wae that "a decree in a previous suit cannot be pleaded as res judicata in a subsequent suit unless 1.he judge by whom it was made had jurisdiction to ~ry and decide not only the particular matter in issue but also the subsequent suit itself in which the. issue is subsequently raised", and in upholding this argu· ment their Lordships observed that "in this respect (1) 8 W.R. 175. (ll 2 Smith Lead. Cas. 13th Ed. pp. 6« 64~. (3) (1902) I. L. R. 29 Cal. 707. - ' ' Ji.st. Gul«.i $1u v. M 5n;h11l, ~ci Gcjenir.a1•fikcr J. \ i JKI .Ill/. Gu/Cb Bdi v. M1Jrrphc1I Bai Gcjtnir•1•4hr ]. SUl'REMIE' COURT :OOPORT& [Hl62~ tho cnaotml!nt goes beyond s. rn of t!Je pro• viovEr Act X of 1877, and also, as appears to their Lord8hips; beyon part of it or a ma.terfal1issuo ariBing· in it. Severai· decisions have been cit~d before us where this·qucstion has been. considered. We do not tliink any useful purpose would be served by refurring to them. It may !Jo enough t:o stat.tl that; in a lllrgc majority of' decisions the word "suit/' ha.'l 1 been liloraHy construed [vi