Supreme Court Holds Subsequent Suit Barred Under Order II Rule 2 CPC; Reaffirms Limits on Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC

Case Name: Channappa (D) Thr. LRs v. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. LRs
Citation: 2026 INSC 343
Date of Judgment/Order: 09 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Held: The Supreme Court held that a subsequent suit seeking declaration of title and possession is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC where the plaintiff had earlier omitted to claim such reliefs despite being aware of the dispute, and further held that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless a substantial question of law arises.

Summary: The dispute arose from two successive suits between the same parties relating to ownership and possession of immovable property. In the first suit, the plaintiff challenged the validity of an adoption deed and sought injunction but did not seek declaration of title. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a second suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the second suit holding it barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The High Court, however, reversed these findings in second appeal and decreed the suit. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings and found that the cause of action in both suits was substantially the same, as the dispute regarding ownership and rights over the property had already arisen at the time of the first suit. Applying the principles laid down in Gurbux Singh and other precedents, the Court held that the plaintiff was obliged to claim all reliefs arising from the same cause of action in the earlier suit and failure to do so attracted the bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The Court also held that constructive res judicata applied, as the plaintiff could and ought to have raised the claim in the earlier proceedings. Further, the Court analysed Section 105 CPC to clarify that interlocutory orders do not attain finality and can be challenged in appeal against the final decree. On the issue of second appeal, the Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by reappreciating facts without demonstrating perversity or a substantial question of law.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, restored the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, and dismissed the subsequent suit as barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, with parties left to bear their own costs.