Key Points: - The judgment discusses whether the bar under Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 could be a ground for disqualification or eligibility and the admissibility of raising that point, concluding it was not open to agitate for the first time since it was not pressed or pleaded earlier. (!) (!) (!) - It addresses constructive res judicata under Explanation 4 of Section 11 CPC, holding that grounds not pressed or pleaded and not decided previously cannot be re-argued in subsequent petitions, and explains why the prior judgment foreclosed the point. (!) (!) - The Court notes that because the earlier Supreme Court decision (in the prior petition) held that a marriage to a Munda tribal member could confer tribal status, the present challenge was limited to the remaining issues, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs. (!) (!) (!)

What is the procedural impact of Section 57 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on eligibility in a tribal election petition?

What is the principle of res judicata, including constructive res judicata, as applied to grounds raised in Election Petition No. 9 of 1971 and its relation to prior petitions?

What are the limits on re-agitation of issues not pressed or pleaded in pleadings in subsequent appeals or petitions?