2026 Supreme(SC) 371

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Channappa (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Parvatewwa (D) through LRs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4330 of 2026 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 8536 of 2024]
Decided On : 09-04-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Constructive res judicata – Where a matter has been constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been actually heard and decided.
(2) Legislative scheme does not oblige a party to challenge each and every interlocutory order at the stage at which it is made – Unless a statute expressly mandates otherwise, such orders may be questioned in an appeal against final decree.
(3) Bar on subsequent suit – Where plaintiff omits to claim a relief which he is entitled to claim on same cause of action, he is precluded from instituting subsequent suit in respect of such omitted relief.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 105 – Appeal against decree – General rule is that interlocutory orders are not independently appealable but may be assailed in appeal against final decree – Legislative scheme does not oblige a party to challenge each and every interlocutory order at the stage at which it is made – Unless a statute expressly mandates otherwise, such orders may be questioned in an appeal against final decree – Where CPC itself provides a specific mechanism of challenge to certain orders, such orders must be assailed in the manner so prescribed, failing which right to question them may stand foreclosed – Order in question does not tantamount to final adjudication of rights – As such, scheme of Section 105 comes into operation, enabling legal representatives of appellant to assail correctness of order in appeal against decree – To hold that such order has assumed irrevocable finality would be to defeat very purpose of Section 105, CPC and to confer upon a non-appealable interlocutory order a status which Legislature has consciously chosen not to accord. (Paras 11, 12 and 14)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order II Rule 2 – Bar on subsequent suit – Where plaintiff omits to claim a relief which he is entitled to claim on same cause of action, he is precluded from instituting subsequent suit in respect of such omitted relief – Plaintiff was already asserting ownership and disputing rights of defendants in respect of same properties – Relief of declaration of title and consequential relief relating to possession could and ought to have been claimed in earlier proceedings – Subsequent institution of suit seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession in respect of same property and between same parties is clearly hit by provisions of Order II Rule 2, CPC. (Paras 20, 23, 27 and 28)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Explanation IV to Section 11 – Constructive res judicata – An adjudication is conclusive not only as to the matters actually decided but also as to every other matter which parties might and ought to have litigated in earlier proceedings – Where a matter has been constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been actually heard and decided – It could only be deemed to have been heard and decided – Trial Court in Suit II and First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, had concurrently recorded findings that subsequent suit was barred by principle of Constructive res judicata – Such findings were in consonance with the settled principles governing the application of Section 11 and Order II Rule 2, CPC. (Paras 30, 31, 32 and 33)

(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law – Findings of fact concurrently recorded by Courts below cannot ordinarily be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence – High Court proceeded to reassess entire factual matrix and arrived at conclusions contrary to findings concurrently recorded by Courts below – Such an exercise, in absence of a clear demonstration that findings of Courts below were perverse or contrary to law, was beyond permissible limits of jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC – High Court did not record any cogent reason to demonstrate that concurrent findings suffered from perversity or were based on a misapplication of settled legal principles – As such, interference by High Court with concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. (Paras 35, 38 and 39)

Facts of the case:

Following issues fall for determination: –

A. Whether Suit – II, instituted by Parvatewwa (since deceased, represented by Prema) was barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata under Section 11, CPC, or by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 thereof, in view of the earlier proceedings in Suit – I and the appellate proceedings arising therefrom?

B. Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the above question and in decreeing Suit – II?

Findings of Court:

In view of the conclusions recorded on preceding issues, Parvatewwa’s claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession cannot be sustained. The High Court committed a manifest error of law in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.

Result : Appeal allowed.