Application Of Constructive Res Judicata Dependent On Facts And Circumstances: Supreme Court In Family Property Dispute Matter

The Apex Court was considering a Civil Appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in a long-standing property dispute that began somewhere in the 1960s.

Dealing with the aspect of constructive res judicata principle, the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “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’."

Advocate Vivek Singh represented the Appellant while AOR Gopal Prasad represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The properties in question belonged to the grandson of one Gokul Rai i.e., Mahabir Rai. In 1960, Mahabir Rai, transferred a portion of his property totalling to 95.80 acres in favour of his mother, Raj Mohani @Roopjhari and his son, the present appellant. In 1962, Mahabir Rai, his wife Gulmati, and mother Raj Mohani @ Rupjhari executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Rambhajan, who is Mahabir Rai’s cousin (son of Baldeo’s sister Dhanmati). In 1969, on two separate occasions, Rambhajan, using the said GPA, sold 21.43 acres of land to one Prem Prakash and 33.76 acres to one Chandra Sao. The said GPA was cancelled by the grantors. Thereafter, Mahabir Rai filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed qua the transfer of 21.43 acres of land, which was eventually dismissed by the Civil Judge.

In the year 1985, Rambhajan applied for mutating his name in the Revenue Records, which was dismissed at the first instance but allowed on appeal. This mutation pushed the plaintiff, Makardhwaj, the appellant, to file yet another civil suit. This proceeding had culminated in the appeal in question. The suit was filed for declaration of title and possession against Rambhajan. The suit was partly decreed, and as against the claim of 95.8 acres, the plaintiff was held to be entitled to 43.69 acres. Aggrieved, the successor- in-interest of Rambhajan i.e., Jagdish Rai, further represented through LRs, appealed to the Additional District Judge, which came to be dismissed. He took the matter to the High Court, where, in terms of the impugned judgment, the judgment and decree of the Courts below were set aside, dismissing the suit as being barred by constructive res judicata.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that there was a difference between the two rounds of litigation regarding the properties since the earlier suits were filed based on sale deeds seeking to recover the lands lost as a result thereof, and the latter was filed seeking a declaration of title and possession in respect of the land that remained after the alienations that had been made. 

Reasoning

The Bench explained that 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. “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?”, it stated.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the present proceedings were indirectly the culmination of a long history of litigation. The Bench noticed that the appellant-plaintiff, by virtue of the 1960 deed, was the owner of a large portion of land. According to him, Rambhajan 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?”, it added.

The Bench further found that when the apprehension arose by virtue of Rambhajan’s application to mutate his name in the relevant records with respect to the entire property in excess of what was part of the sale transaction, came the suit by Makardhwaj, asserting his right which had and in his view, been hitherto unquestioned. “This question missed the attention of the High Court”, it clarified.

The Bench also highlighted the following aspects of constructive res judicata:

• 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 under Article 226/32 of the Constitution of India.
• In respect of ‘ought’ referred above, 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.

The Bench was of the view that the part of the appellant-plaintiff’s right which was threatened was challenged, so in effect, he, through his guardians, was protecting his rights.

"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 plaintiff’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.", the Court said.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment.

Cause Title: Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Th. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 636)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Vivek Singh, AOR Lakshmi Raman Singh, Advocates Udita Singh, Divya Sharma, C.P. Rajwar, Rohan Chandra

Respondent: AOR Gopal Prasad

Click here to read/download Judgment