SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusRAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.

                                 [2016) 4 S.C.R. 391




...                       SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
                                          v.
                            RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.
                                                                                 A




                        (Civil Appeal Nos. 4083-4084of2016)
                                    MAY06, 2016                                  B

                [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, JJ.)
                Res judicata - Applicability of - Previous proceedings - Based
         on different cause of action and in respect of different subject matter,
         though between the same parties - Whether would operate as res
         judicata -Held: When the cause of action as well as subject matter
                                                                                  c
         are different, principle of res judicata is not attracted and the court
         is not barred.from trying the subsequent suit which may arise between
         the same parties - All the issues including those of facts, remain
         open for adjudication - However, the issues of facts will be barred
         on the principle of 'estoppel ', more particularly 'issue estoppel' D
         which flows from principles of evidence from ss.115, 116 and 117
         of Evidence Act, and from the principles of equity - But where the ·
         decision is on the pure question of law such bar cannot be invoked,
         either on the principle of 'estoppel' or on 'equity' - No equitable
         principle or equity can impede the powers of the court to determine
                                                                                  E
         an issue of law in a subsequent suit. which relates to different subject
         matter and founded upon different cause of action, though parties
         may be same - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. l I - Evidence
         Act, 1872 - ss.115, 116 and 117 - Estoppel.
              Estoppel - Applicability of - Principle of estoppel operates
                                                                                 F
         against the party and not the court.
               Estoppel - Nature of - As a principle of evidence, estoppel is
         treated to be an aamission or something equivalent to admission in
         the eyes of law - Evidence.
               Dismissing the appeals, the Court-                                G
               HELD: 1.1 Once a judgment in a former suit or proceeding
         acquires finality, it binds the parties totally and completely on all
  '--·
         issues relating to the subject matter of the suit or proceeding.
         This flows from Section 11 of the CPC which in turn is based
         upon ancient doctrines embodied in every civilized system of            H
                                        391
392            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     jurisprudence with almost universal application that an earlier
      adjudication between the same parties is conclusive in respect
      of the same subject matter. The Latin maxims relevant for
      explaining the concept of res judicata clearly specify that: (1) no
      man should be vexed twice for the same cause, (2) it is in the
      interest of State that there should be an end to a litigation and (3)
B
      a judicial decision once it has attained finality must be accepted
      as correct between the parties. [Para 12] (401-B-C]
             1.2 Strictly speaking, when the cause of action as well as
      the subject matter i.e, the property in issue in- the subsequent
      suit are entirely different, res judicata is not attracted and the
c     competent Court is therefore not debarred from trying the
      subsequent suit which may arise between the same parties in
      respect of other properties and upon a different cause of action.
      In such a situation, since the Court is not debarred, all issues
      including those of facts remain open for adjudication by the
D     competent Court and the principle which is attracted against the
      party which has lost on an important issue of fact in the earlier
      suit is the principle of estoppel, more particularly "issue estoppel"
      which flows from principles of evidence such as from Sections
      115, 116 and 117 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and from principles
      of equity. As a principle of evidence, estoppel is treated to be an
E     admission or in the eyes of law something equivalent to an
      admission of such quality and nature that the maker is not allowed
      to contradict it.The issues of facts once finally determined will
      stare at the parties and bind them on account of earlier judgJDents
      or for any other good reason where equitable principles of estoppel
 F    are attracted. [Paras 13 and 14] (401-E-F; 402-D-E]
            1.3 The High Court is right in holding that previous
      proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues
      of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law when the
      subsequent suit or proceeding is based upon a different cause of
 G    action and in respect of different property though between the
      same parties. [Para 12] [400-G-H; 401-A]
            Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim AIR 1966 All 84 (FB);
            Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra
            2011 (1) SCR 321 : (2011) 2 SCC 705; Isabella Johnson
            v. MA. Susai AIR 1991 SC 993 :1990 (2) Suppl. SCR
H
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.                           393



      213; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta 2005 (3) Suppl.                 A
      SCR 48 : (2005) 12 SCC 1; Bishwanath Prasad Sin}{h
      v. Rajendra Prasad AIR 2006 SC 2965 : 2006 (2) SCR
      566; Mohan/al Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee AIR
      1953 SC 65 :1953 SCR 377; State of West Ben}{al v.
      Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee AIR 1966 SC 1061 : 1963
                                                                           B
      Suppl. SCR 542; Saroja v. Chinnusamy (Dead) by Lrs.
      and Am: 2007 (9) SCR 304 : (2007) 8 SCC 329; Ahsan
      Hussain Abdul Ali Bohari, Proprietor Abidi Shop v.
      Maina !f/o Nathu Telan}{a AIR 1938 Nag 129 - relied
      on.
       2.1 The distinction drawn by the High Court in the impugned         c
judgment that an erroneous determination of a pure question of
 law in a previous judgment will not operate as res judicata in the
subsequent proceeding for different property, though between
 the same parties, is clearly in accord with Section 11 of the CPC.
.[Para
   - 131- [401-Dl                                                          D
      2.2 Where the decision is on a pure question of law, then a
Court cannot be precluded from deciding such question of law
differently. Such bar cannot be invoked either on principle of
equity or estoppel. No equitable principle or estoppel can impede
powers of the Court to determine an issue of law correctly in a            E
subsequent suit which relates to another property founded upon
a different cause of action though parties may be same. In such a
situation, the principle of res judicata is, strictly speaking, not
applicable at all. [Para 14] [402-B-C]
      2.3 So far as the principle of estoppel is concerned, it operates    F
against the party and not the Court and hence nothing comes in
the way of a competent court in such a situation to decide a pure
question of law differently, if it is so warranted. [Para 14] [402-D]
      Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B.
      Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355 : 1970 (3) SCR 830 -
                                                                           G
      relied on.
      Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India 2013
      (1) SCR 814 : (2013) 5 SCC 252 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
      1970 (3) SCR 830                       relied on      Para5          H
394            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 4 S.C.R.


A           AIR 1966 All 84 (FB)                     relied on       Paras
            2011 (1) SCR 321                         relied on       Paras
            2013 (1) SCR 814                         referred to     Para6
            1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 213                  relied on       Para8
            200S (3) Suppl. SCR 48                   relied on       Para8
B
            21)06 (2) SCR S66                        relied on       Para8
            19S3 SCR 377                             relied on       Para9
            1963 Suppl. SCR S42                      relied on       Para9
            2907 (9) SCR 304                         relied on       Para 9
C           AIR 19~8 Nag 129             relied on      Para 13
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4083-
      84 of2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2013 in WB No. 46506/
      2013 and dated22.0l.2014 in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 334191/
D     2013 in WB No. 46506/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Allahabad.
            S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ankur Yadav; Yash Pal Dhingra, Advs. for
      the Appellant.
            Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Vikas Verma, Vivek Gupta, Mis Anuradha
E     & Associates, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. The appellants were successful
      before all the Consolidation Authorities, the Consolidation Officer,
      Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation
 F
      whose orders passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of
      Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'.') were challenged
      by the non-official respondents/writ petitioners by preferring Writ B No.
      46506 of 2013 and the same has been allowed by the judgment and
      order under appeal dated 8.11.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of
 G    the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
             2. High Court has, at the outset recorded in the judgment that
      there is no factual controversy in the writ proceedings and on that account
      the respondents chose not to file counter affidavit. With the consent of
      the parties the arguments were heard at the admission stage leading to
H     final adjudication and remand which is under challenge.
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.                                 395
             [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, .I.]

       3. The relevant facts necessary for understanding the subject matter     A
of the dispute between the parties including the main issue, of res judicata
are clear from the facts noted by the High Court in paragraph 3 and 4 of
the impugned judgment. They are as follows:
      "3. The dispute relates to the land ofkhatas I, 3, 4 and 5 of village
      Sarai Aziz, talluka Harikishun, tahsil Phoolpur, districtAllahabad,        B
      which were recorded in the names of the respondents, in basic
      consolidation record. The consolidation was started in the year
      2000, in the village. Raj Nath Dubey (petitioner- I) filed an objection
      (registered as Case No. 18/19) for recording his name over 1/2
      share of the disputed land, along with the respondents. It has been
      stated by the petitioner that the land in dispute was the property
                                                                                 c
      of Kishun, who had five sons namely, Bechai, Kanhai, Bindra,
      Pancham and Sheetal. Bindra, Pancham and Sheetal died issueless
      and the properties ofKishun was inherited by Bechai and Kanhai
      alone. The respondents are sons/grandso1is of Bechai and the
      petitioners are sons of Kanhai as such they have I /2 share in the         D
      land in dispute. Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated
      22.02.2001, referred the dispute to the Consolidation Officer for
      decision on merits. Later on, Amar Nath Dubey (petitioner-2)
      filed an application dated 03.03.2001, alleging therein that his father
      Kanhai had three sons namely Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj
      Nath, who jointly inherited Kanhai. He had also filed an objection         E
      in respect of the disputed land, before Assistant Consolidation
      Officer but the same was misplaced as such he may be imp leaded
      as an objector in the objection of Raj Nath Dubey. The impleadment
      application moved hy AmarNath Dubey was allowed.
      4. The respondents contested the objection on the grounds that             F
      Kanhai son ofKishun was unmarried and died issue less. His share
      in the land in dispute was inherited by them, who are sons/grand
      sof)s of Bechai, his brother. The petitioners were not the sons of
      Kanhai They earlier filed an objection during consolidation, in
      respect of the land of village Chak Nuruddinpur alias Nagdilpur,           G
      pargana Sikandara, district Allahabad, in which it has been held
      that Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath were born to Smt. Ram
      Pyari due to her illegitimate relations with Kanhai and they being
      illegitimate sons, not entitled to inherit Kanhai. It was also held
      that the respondents were the heirs ofKanhai. The judgments of
                                                                                 H
396            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A           consolidation authorities in the previous proceedings operate as
            res-judicata between the parties and the objection of the petitioners
            was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On the basis of
            the pleadings of the parties, the Consolidation Officer, framed
            issues on 30.04.2005. Issue No. 3 was framed as to Whether the
            objection of the petitioners, claiming share of Kanhai, alleging
B
            themselves as his sons, is barred by res-judicata?"
             4. The issue no. 3, as noticed above by the High Court, was raised
      by the respondents before the High Court who are appellants herein. It
      was on their application that the Consolidation Officer decided it as a
      preliminary issue. The Consolidation Officer noticed the earlier petition
c     filed in the year 1966 in respect of land of another village, Chak
      Nuruddinpur alias Nagdilpur between the same parties that had been
      decided against the writ petitioners by holding that Jagannath, Amar
      Nath and Raj Nath were illegitimate sons of Kanhai and not entitled to
      inherit his share because Kanhai was a Brahmin Hindu. It was found
D     that the earlier judgment had become final at the revisional stage and
      hence it would operate as resjudicata against the writ'petitioners whose
      claim of being heirs of Kanhai had been decided against them in the
      previous proceeding. Thus, issue no. 3 was decided against the writ
      petitioners leading to rejection of theirobjection on 1.12.2012. The appeal
      as we! I as revision petition preferred by the writ petitioners did not find
 E    favour in the light of the findings in the judgments rendered in the earlier
      proceedings that Kanhai was unmarried; Jagannath, Amar Nath and
      Raj Nath were his illegitimate sons from Smt. Ram Pyari and hence
      were not his heirs. The appellate order dated 6.3.2013 and revisional
      order dated 23.5.2013 along with the order of the Consolidation Officer
 F    dated 1.12.2012 which were under challenge before the Writ Court were
      scrutinized by the Writ Court with care in the light of submissions
      advanced by the rival parties.
             5.The stand of the writ petitioners in course of arguments was
      that the judgments rendered in the previous proceedings would operate
 G    as res judicata in respect of issues of facts alone but not in respect of
      a pure issue of law as to whether as illegitimate s01is of a Brahmin a
      person was entitled to inherit the property of his father or not. In other
      words, the writ petitioners accepted the findings of fact in respect of
      Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath being the illegitimate sons ofKanhai
      but disputed the other finding that in law such illegitimate sons cannot
 H
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.                                  397
             [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

inherit the property of their father. The previous judgment on this legal        A
issue was disputed by the writ petitioners. According to them decision
on such pure issues of law could not operate as resjudicata in respect
of other properties which were not subject matter of the earlier
proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities. The writ petitioners
placed heavy reliance upon a judgment of this Court in case ofMathura
                                                                                 B
Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy 1• This judgment
was relied upon for the proposition that the rule of res judicata is a rule
of procedure and cannot supersede the law of the land. According to
writ petitioners, the law of land warrants a view that since Kanhai was
unmarried hence his illegitimate children born to Smt. Ram Pyari were
entitled to inherit the estate of Kanhai under the Hindu law and they             c
would have priority in the matter of inheritance of Kanhai as against his
brother's sons. The writ petitioners placed reliance upon Section 171 of
the U.P. Act no. I of 1951 to support their submission that illegitimate
son was not excluded and the exclusion cannot be inferred automatically
in the absence of statutory exception. In support of the legal principle
                                                                                  D
that exclusion clause must be specific under the statute, reliance was
placed on a full bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Raj Narain
Saxena v. Bhim" and upon judgment of this Court.in Rajendra Prasad
Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra'.
       6. On the other hand the respondents before the Writ Cou11 i.e,
                                                                                  E
the appellants herein advanced a submission that principle of res judicata
is applicable in respect of issues relating to facts and law both. In support,
reliance was placed upon this Court's judgment in Kalinga Mining
Corporation v. Union oflndia•. The appellants also relied upon some
case laws according to which the illegitimate children were entitled under
Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to inherit only the self acquired          F
property of their father whereas the lands in dispute are claimed to be
with the family from the time of Ki shun father of Bechai and Kanhai.
      7. The Writ Cou11 accepted the submission advanced on behalf of
appellants that as per settled law, the principles of res judicata,
constructive resjudicata and estoppel are applicable to the proceedings           G
under the Act. The Writ Court, however made a distinction between
binding nature of even an erroneous judgment between the same parties
1
  AIR 1971 SC2355
2
  AIR 1966 All 84 (FB)
' (2011 > 2 sec 10s
'(2013) s sec 2s2                                                                 H
398            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     in respect of same property and the binding nature of such judgment in
      another proceeding as res judicata when the subsequent proceeding or
      suit is for a different property. For this purpose it noticed paragraph I 0
      of the judgment in case of Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal (supra).
      Paragraph I 0 is as follows:
B           "10. It is true that in determining the application of the rule ofres
            j udicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or
            otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one
            purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent
            Court must in asubsequent litigation between the same parties be
            regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed
c           question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding
            between the same parties may not, for the same reason, be
            questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties.
            But, where the decision is on a question oflaw i.e. the interpretation
            of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding
D           between the same parties where the cause of action is the same,
            for the expression "the matter in issue" in Section 11 of the Code
            of Civil Procedure means the right litigated between the parties
            i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and the law
            applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the
            question is one purely oflaw and it relates to the jurisdiction of the
E           Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is
             illegal, by resort to the rule ofres judicata a party affected by the
            decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that
            order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot
            supersede the law of the land."
 F           8. Following the aforesaid view of this Court, the High Court held
      that same view has been followed in the case of Isabella Johnson v.
      M.A. SusaP, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta 6 and Bishwanath
      Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad 7• The judgments cited on behalf of
      appellants including one in Kalinga Mining Corporation (supra) were
 G    distinguished by holding that they were not an authority for the proposition
      that a past judgment between the parties in respect of another subject
      matter/property, even if erroneous in law will operate as resjudicata in
      a subsequent suit based upon different cause of action for a different
      'AIR 199] SC 993
      '(2005) 12 sec 1
 H    7
        AIR 2006 SC 2965
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.                                399
             [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

property. The High Court finally held that findings in the previous            A
judgments that Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath were born to Smt.
Ram Pyari widow of Ram Nath out of her illegitimate relations with
Kanhai are findings relating to facts and would thus operate as res
;udicata. However the finding that illegitimate children of Ram Pyari
and Kanhal are not entitled to inherit Kanhai being findings on issues of
                                                                                B
law, as held by High Comi, would not operate as res judicata in the
subsequent proceedings in respect of other properties. The High Court
accordingly modified the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities
and directed the Consolidation Officer to conclude the trial of other issues
and pass final order after allowing the parties to lead their evidence.
      9.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has                 c
submitted that concurrent findings of Consolidation Authorities should
not have been interfered with by the High Court and that the High Court
has erred in holding that the previous judgments though in respect of
another property would not operate as res judicata in respect of pure
question of law in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties.            D
Appellants have also filed written notes in support of their submissions
and have relied upon followingjudgments:
       (I) Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee 8 and
       particularly on the following passage in paragraph 23:
         "23. There is ample authority for the proposition that even an         E
       erroneous decision on a question oflaw operates as 'resjudicata'
       between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial
       decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates
       as 'res judicata."
       (2) State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee9
                                                                                F
       and patiicularly on the fol lowing extract from paragraph 14:
         "14 .......... A wrong decision by a court havingjurisdiction is
       as much binding between the parties as a right one and may be
       superseded only by appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure
       like review which the law provides."
       (3) Saroja v. Chinnusamy (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr. 10                      G

       I 0. So far as case of Mohanlal Goenka (supra) is concerned,
the second round oflitigation was admittedly in respect of same property
"AIR 1953 ::,, . 65
9
  AIR 1966 SL 1061
10
   (2007) s sec 329                                                             H
400             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 4 S.C.R.



A     and between the same parties, after the earlier litigation had attained
      finality even up to the stage of execution. Since the judgment debtor,
      neither in the application filed for setting aside sales nor at initial stage
      raised any objection on the ground that the execution Court had no
      jurisdiction to pass the decree, it was held that later on the judgment
      debtor was precluded from raising the plea of jurisdiction in view of
B
      principles of constructive res judicata. In the case of State of West
      Bengal (supra) the main issue related to jurisdiction of the Special Court
      to try a criminal offence. One of the submissions advanced before this
      Court was to ignore an earlier order of High Court which had attained
      finality between the parties, because oflaw being settled otherwise in a
c     subsequent decision of the Apex Court. In that context it was clarified
      that the argument suffered from a fundamental misconception inasmuch
      as an incorrect decision cannot be equated with a decision rendered
      without jurisdiction. The law was succinctly stated by holding that a
      wrong decision by a Cou1t havingjurisdiction is as much binding between
      the parties as a right one. Even a wrong decision can be superseded
D
      only through appeals to higher tribunals or Courts or through review, if
      provided ~Y law.
              11. In the case of Saroja (supra) this Court found that all the
      conditions necessary to constitute res judicata under Section 11 of the
      CPC stood satisfied in the facts of that case. The main dispute related to
 E    two issues -(I) whether an ex parte decree could attract resjudicata
      and (2) whether the appellant could be held bound by the judgment in the
      earlier suit when he was not a party to the same although she had acquired
      title from the person who as a party had suffered the ex parte decree.
      Both the issues were decided against the appellant of that case by holding
 F    that an ex parte decree was as good as a decree passed after contest
      and such ex parte decree, unless set aside on the ground of fraud or
      collusion will not only bind the original parties to the former suit but also
      other parties who claim under any of them and seek to litigate under the
      same title.

 G           12. The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the appellants, in our
      view do not distract from the reasoning and correctness of the findings
      given by the High Court that previous proceedings would operate as res
      iudicata only in respect of issues of facts and not on issues of pure
      questions of law when the subsequent suit or proceeding is based upon
      a different cause of action and in respect of different property though
 H
SATYENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. RAJ NATH DUBEY & ORS.                                   401
             [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

between the same parties. We are in agreement with the views of the                A
High Court and hence do not deem it necessary to go into further details
of the legal concept of res judicata and estoppel. It is sufficient to
indicate that once a judgment in a former suit or proceeding acquires
finality, it binds the parties totally and completely on all issues relating to
the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. This flows from Section 11
                                                                                   B
of the CPC which in turn is based upon ancient doctrines embodied in
every civilized system ofjurisprudence with almost universal application
that an earlier adjudication between the same parties is conclusive in
respect of the same subject matter. The Latin maxims relevant for
explaining the concept of res judicata clearly specify that: (I) no man
should be vexed twice for the same cause, (2) it is in the interest of State       c
thatthere should be an end to a litigation and (3) a judicial decision once
it has attained finality must be accepted as correct between the parties.
       13. The distinction drawn by the High Court in the impugned
judgment that an erroneous determination of a pure question oflaw in a
previous judgment will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent               D
proceeding for different property, though between the same parties, is
clearly in accord with Section 11 of the CPC. Strictly speaking, when
the cause of action as well as the subject matter i.e, the property in issue
in the subsequent suit are entirely different, resjudicata is not attracted
and the competent Court is therefore not debarred from trying the
subsequent suit which may arise between the same parties in respect of
                                                                                   E
other properties and upon a different cause ofaction. In such a situation,
since the Court is not debarred, all issues including those of facts remain
open for adjudication by the competent Court and the principle which is
attracted against the party which has lost on an important issue of fact in
the earlier suit is the principle of estoppel, more particularly "issue            F
estoppel" which flows from principles of evidence such as from Sections
115, 116 and 117 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and from principles of
equity. As a principle of evidence, estoppel is treated to be an admission
or in the eyes oflaw something equivalent to an admission of such quality
and nature that the maker is not allowed to contradict it. In other words
it works as an impediment or bar to a right of action due to affected              G
person's conduct or action. "Estoppel by judgment" finds reference in
the case of Ahsan Hussain Abdul Ali Bohari, Proprietor Abidi
Shop v. Maina W/o Nathu Telanga 11 • It is taken as a bar which
precludes the parties after final judgment to reagitate and relitigate the
11
     AIR 1938 Nag 129                                                              H
402             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2016]4 S.C.R.


A     same cause of action or ground of defence or any fact determined by
      the judgment. If the determination was by a Court of competent
      jurisdiction, the bar will remain operative even ifthe judgment is perceived
      to be erroneous. If the parties fail to get rid of an erroneous judgment,
      they as well as persons claiming through them must remain bound by it.
B            14. However, as explained and held by this Court in the case of
      Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal (supra), where the decision is on a
      pure question of law then a Court cannot be precluded from deciding
      such question of law differently. Such bar cannot be invoked either on
      principle of equity or estoppel. No equitable principle or estoppel can
      impede powers of the Court to determine an issue of law correctly in a
c     subsequent suit which relates to another property founded upon a
      different cause of action though pa1ties may be same. As explained
      earlier, in such a situation the principle of res judicata is, strictly speaking,
      not applicable at all. So far as principle of estoppel is concerned, it
      operates against the party and not the Court and hence nothing comes in
D     the way of a competent court in such a situation to decide a pure question
      of law differently if it is so warranted. The issues of facts once finally
      determined will however, stare at the parties and bind them on account
      of earlier judgments or for any other good reason where equitable
      principles of estoppel are attracted.

 E           15. In view of the discussion made above we find no merit in the
      appeals which are therefore dismissed. In the peculiar facts of the case
      there shall be no orders as to costs.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                           Appeals dismissed.