Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sharada Sanghi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Asha Agarwal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2013
Decided On : 25-03-2026
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata in contradistiction to maxim maxim nemo debet bis vexari, si constet curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa – Section 11 postulates that matter must have been “heard and finally decided” – Dismissal of a suit for default, not being a decision on merits, cannot ordinarily be regarded as a final adjudication so as to attract strict application of Section 11, CPC – Once a dispute relating to a particular cause has been brought before a competent court, same party cannot be allowed to raise the very same issue again in another proceeding or at a later stage – Rule is meant to prevent repeated litigation over same matter and to ensure finality in judicial decisions – It protects parties from being subjected to multiple proceedings based on same cause – It is different from res judicata in sense that its application in a given situation does not require a decision on merits to be rendered in earlier round of proceedings before court. (Paras 30 and 33)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rules 8 and 9 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16 – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Once a suit is dismissed for default owing to absence of plaintiff but when defendant is present, legal consequences under Order IX Rule 8, CPC come into operation – In such a situation, remedy available to plaintiff is circumscribed by Order IX Rule 9 of CPC, which expressly bars institution of a fresh suit on same cause of action – Only course open to such a plaintiff is to seek restoration of earlier suit by demonstrating sufficient cause for his absence on date of dismissal – Appellants not only permitted original suits to be dismissed for default but also allowed restoration proceedings to meet same fate--Such repeated non-prosecution cannot be simply brushed aside as a lack of initiative to carry proceedings forward – Judicial process is designed to resolve genuine disputes and not facilitate repetitive or frivolous claims – It would be contrary to public policy to permit appellants to reap benefits of decree for its execution against respondents and have them dispossessed from property – Impugned Judgments upheld. (Paras 39, 40, 42, 50 and 53)
Facts of the case:
The following issues fall for determination:
A. Whether Appellate Court was right in returning the finding that claim of appellants was hit by res judicata and the High Court was right in affirming such finding?
B. Whether conduct of appellants is such that the same would disentitle them to any relief?
Findings of Court:
The impugned judgment is upheld but for reasons other than those assigned therein. As a sequel thereto, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEAL
1. This civil appeal, by special leave granted on 14th March, 2013, assails the judgment and decree dated 21st October, 20101[impugned judgment] passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad2[High Court] of dismissal of a second appeal3[Second Appeal No. 620 of 2007] preferred by the appellants, thereby affirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 17th January, 2007. Appellants4[plaintiffs in the original suit] were directed to seek their remedies by way of a separate civil suit.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, are these.
2.1 Appellants instituted a suit5[O.S. No. 329 of 1988] seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 15th December, 1986 in respect of the northern portion of an immovable property bearing Municipal No. 3-6-996[suit property], situated at Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad before the Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad7[Trial Court].
2.2 The suit property allegedly belonged to Smt. Amatul Wahab Jaffernnisa Begum, who died on 25th January, 1983. Upon her demise, her only son, Abdul Mujeeb Mahmood, succeeded to the property. While in possession thereof, he entered into the agreement8[said agreement] for sale with the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/- in respect of a portion admeasuring approximately 685 square yards.
2.3 Trigger for the suit for specific performance and possession9[specific performance suit] was the alleged failure on the part of Abdul Mujeeb Mahmood - the defendant - to perform his obligations under the said agreement.
2.4 By judgment and decree dated 28th October, 1998, the Trial Court decreed the specific performance suit, directing the appellants to deposit the balance consideration and further directing execution of the sale deed through court in the event of default by the defendant. The decree attained finality.
2.5 Appellants thereafter initiated Execution Petition No. 37 of 1999 before the executing court. A sale deed was executed through court on 25th January, 2001, and warrants for delivery of possession were issued. Delivery of possession commenced through the process of court.
2.6 At that stage, the respondents 1 to 3 (who were not parties to the specific performance suit) filed an application10[objection petition] under Order XXI Rules 99 to 101, Code of Civil Procedure, 190811[CPC] asserting independent title and possession over portions of the same property on the basis of sale deeds dated 5th July, 1990 and 20th July, 1990, purportedly executed by one Mir Sadat Ali acting through a General Power of Attorney12[GPA] holder. It was claimed that Mir Sadat Ali had derived title pursuant to an alleged oral gift made in his favour by the original owner, Smt. Amatul Wahab Jaffernnisa Begum. It was vigorously claimed that the appellants had instituted two suits13[O.S. Nos. 892 and 893 of 1990] seeking cancellation of the said sale deeds; however, the said suits came to be dismissed for default on 18th October, 1996 and 27th October, 1998 respectively. Not only that, proceedings initiated thereafter for restoration of the two suits also met the same fate. Since the appellants accepted the orders of dismissal, the issue as to legality and validity of the sale deeds by which the respondents 1 to 3 claimed to have acquired title attained finality.
2.7 The said respondents also asserted that they were bona fide purchasers for value; that the decree passed in the specific performance suit was not binding upon them as neither their vendors nor they were parties to such suit; and that the execution proceedings were vitiated by fraud. They sought protection of possession and consequential reliefs.
2.8 The objection petition was contested by the appellants. The executing court conducted a detailed enquiry, permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Issues relating to title, possession, authority of the alleged vendor, vali
(1) Res Judicata – Dismissal of a suit for default, not being a decision on merits, cannot ordinarily be regarded as a final adjudication so as to attract strict application of Section 11, CPC.(2) Ju....
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The principle of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already decided, confirming that the earlier judgment is binding and the current suit is not maintainable.
The court established that a unified decree involving both a suit and counter claim can be appealed as a single entity, and failure to raise res judicata at the appropriate stage results in waiver of....
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC must not issue notice on application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner.
(1) Suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed on sole ground of delay or laches.(2) Escalation of prices cannot be sole ground to deny specific performance.(3) Once suit for specific performa....
A single appeal can challenge both the decree of a suit and a counter-claim without requiring separate appeals if filed correctly with appropriate court fees.
Specific performance cannot be enforced against parties not privy to the original contract, and suits lacking a cause of action are subject to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
