Later Title Suit Maintainable When Earlier Suit Challenged Only Sale of a Specific Portion of Property: Supreme Court
Case Name: Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Through LRs. & Anr.
Citation: 2026 INSC 636
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 June 2026
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC applies only where a matter might and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceedings, and its application depends on the facts, ambit of the earlier litigation and the nexus between the omitted issue and the controversy previously adjudicated. The Court held that a later suit for declaration of title and possession over remaining property is not barred by constructive res judicata merely because earlier suits had challenged specific sale deeds executed by a power-of-attorney holder in respect of different portions of the property. Where the earlier cause of action was confined to specific alienations and the plaintiff’s broader title was not under threat, there was no obligation to seek declaration over the entire property in those proceedings.
Summary: The dispute concerned property originally belonging to Mahabir Rai, who had transferred 95.80 acres in favour of his mother and son, Makardhwaj Ram, in 1960. In 1962, Mahabir Rai and others executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Rambhajan, who later sold two parcels of land in 1969 measuring 21.43 acres and 33.76 acres. Separate suits challenging those sale deeds were dismissed. Later, when Rambhajan sought mutation of his name in revenue records over the larger property, Makardhwaj filed a suit for declaration of title and possession. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit and the First Appellate Court affirmed it, but the High Court reversed the decree holding that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata because the plaintiff could have asserted title under the 1960 deed in the earlier suits. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the earlier suits were directed against specific sale transactions and did not require the plaintiff, who was then a minor acting through guardians, to assert title over the larger undisputed property. The Court emphasised that constructive res judicata is founded on public policy but cannot be applied mechanically where it would produce unduly harsh and unjust consequences in a family property dispute.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 18.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Second Appeal No. 617 of 1996. The Court restored the position that the later suit for declaration and possession was not barred by constructive res judicata, observing that the plaintiff had challenged only the portion of his rights that was threatened in the earlier sale deed litigation and had no occasion to seek broader declaratory relief until Rambhajan asserted a wider claim through mutation proceedings. The parties were left to take recourse in law as permissible, were directed to bear their own costs, and all pending applications were disposed of.