Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.11 – Principle of constructive res judicata – Inapplicability, when – A portion of the property totalling to 95.80 acres was transferred to the appellant, by his father ‘MR’ – ‘MR’, his wife, and mother executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of ‘R’-‘MR’s cousin who using the said GPA sold certain portions of land – However, the said GPA was subsequently cancelled – Aforesaid transfers challenged by ‘MR’ and his wife, dismissed – ‘R’ sought mutation of his name in the Revenue Records, dismissed at first instance but was allowed on appeal – Appellant filed suit for declaration of title and possession against ‘R’ – Suit was partly decreed, holding the appellant entitled to 43.69 acres as against the claim of 95.8 acres – Appeal filed by successor-in-interest of ‘R’, dismissed – Further appeal filed, High Court dismissed the suit as being barred by constructive res judicata holding that that in both the earlier suits the appellant could have claimed the right over subject land to be flowing from the 1960 deed executed in his favour by ‘MR’ but since, he did not do that and instead chose to pursue an inferior claim of cancellation of sale deed, the stronger one stood given up by application of constructive res judicata – Interference with:
Held: Constructive res judicata mandates that all grounds that might and ought to have been employed in the proceedings, should be employed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – It is a deeming fiction of law, but its application is not uniform and instead is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a particular case with ‘due regard to ambit of the earlier proceedings’ and ‘the nexus which the matter bears to the nature of the controversy’ – The issue of constructive res judicata was decided by Trial Court in favour of appellant – Such finding was agreed to by the First Appellate Court, but wrongly reversed in the impugned judgment by High Court – Appellant by virtue of 1960 deed was the owner of a large portion of land – According to him ‘R’, had wrongly sold off parts thereof in two independent transactions therefore, acting through his parents, he challenged both those transactions – Where and how does the question of asserting his right over the larger parcel of land emerge when the same already rests undisputedly in his favour by virtue of the 1960 deed – When the apprehension arose by virtue of ‘R’s application to mutate his name in the relevant records with respect to the entire property in excess of what was part of sale transaction, came the suit by the appellant, asserting his right which had, in his view, be hitherto unquestioned – This question missed the attention of the High Court – Further, the effect of agreeing with the High Court would be that the appellant would be deprived of the entire property given to him by ‘MR’, and that has been in his name ever since he was born or shortly thereafter – The application of law, especially when it comes to inter family disputes is not akin to enforcing the black letter of the law but calls upon the Judge to understand the surrounding facts and circumstances and in the light thereof come to a conclusion in accordance with law – The part of the appellant’s right which was threatened was challenged so in effect, he through his guardians, was protecting his rights – There was no occasion to do anything further – When this is the reality, to apply a principle of law which would lead to an unduly harsh and unjust consequence, would be offensive to both law and equity in these circumstances – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 8.1, 8.2, 11, 13, 14]
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.11 – Constructive res judicata – Principles of:
Held: Constructive res judicata mandates that all grounds that might and ought to have been employed in the proceedings, should be employed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – It is a deeming fiction of law, but its application is not uniform and instead is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a particular case with ‘due regard to ambit of the earlier proceedings’ and ‘the nexus which the matter bears to the nature of the controversy’ – This principle is founded on public policy – It is a generally acceptable rule that one person should not be “vexed twice over” for the same kind of litigation – As such, it also applies to the proceedings u/Art.226/32 of the Constitution of India – In respect of ‘ought’, the said word implies the threshold to be above mere possibility – The parties while conducting litigation are expected to apply ‘reasonable diligence’, ‘legitimate purview’ – It is from this lens that it shall be adjudicated whether all issues that were properly arising to the litigation; which ought to have been raised; were raised or not – The principle applies with equal force in cases where the ground that might and ought to have been raised was not done, on account of negligence, inadvertence or accident – In other words, might and ought to apply cumulatively with full force, without exception – The party therefore commits these errors at their own peril. [Paras 8.1-8.6]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.