050-NLR-NLR-V-19-PUNCHA-v.-SETHUHAMY.pdf
(217)
Present :De Sampayo J.
PUNCHA v. SETHUH AMTf.
171—C. B. Kegalla, 12,472.
Bes judicata—Action in Village Tribunal for declaration of title—
• Subsequent action in Court of Bequests.
In an action for declaration of title to land in the Court ofBequests the judgment of a Village Tribunal with respect to thesame land cannot be pleaded as res judicata if the value of theland was above Bs. 20. The fact that the land was valued atRs. Id in the Village Tribunal case was considered not conclusiveas to the value.
rp HE facts appear in the judgment.
J. S. Jayewardene, for plaintiff, appellant.—The Village Tribunalis not a Court of competent jurisdiction. The mere fact that theland was valued in the Village Tribunal case at Rs. 15 does notconclude the matter. The Commissioner was wrong in not recordingevidence on the value of the land.
Arulanandan, for defendant, respondent.—The value of the landwas not put in issue in the Village Tribunal case. It must be takento have been admitted by the plaintiff that the value was Rs. 15.The plaintiff is trying to get behind the finding of the VillageTribunal. So loDg as the judgment of the Village Tribunal stands,jurisdiction ought to be presumed.
Jayewardene, in reply.—The technical rules of pleadings are notapplicable to Village Tribunal cases. We ought to be given anopportunity of proving that the land was worth over Rs. 20.
June 20, 1016. De Sampayo J.—
The plaintiff has brought this action for declaration of title ina land called Siyambatugahamullawatta, and for possession and■ damages. It appears there was a previous case involving title tothe same land and between the same parties in the Village Tribunal,which held that the land belonged to the present defendant astrustee of Walpola Vihare, and gave judgment for the value of ajak tree cut down by the present plaintiff. The judgment in theVillage Tribunal has been pleaded as res judicata in this action.The Commissioner has upheld the plea and dismissed the action.
It is essential for the plea ot res judicata that the judgment pleadedshould be one given by a Court of competent jurisdiction. TheVillage Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide questions of title inrespect of land above Rs. 20 in value. In the Village Tribunal casethe land was valued in the plaint at Rs, 15. The land is 3 pelas
1916..
1916.
Sampayo
J.
Puncha v.Stethuhamy
( 218 )
in extent, and the plaintiff values it at Rs. 110. Neither valueis, of course, to be accepted without evidence. In applyingthe doctrine of res judicata, the. Commissioner has not made anyinquiry nor recorded any finding with regard to value, but hasdisposed of the action on being satisfied as to the identity of the •land. The case should go back for the purpose of determiningwhether the lat^d in respect of value was within the jurisdiction ofthe Village Tribunal.
The judgment accordingly is set aside, and the case sent back forfurther proceedings. The plaintiff will have the costs of this appeal.The other issue • between the parties will be tried or not accordingto the Court’s finding on the above question.
Set aside.
•r