Res Judicata Principle Applies Also Between Two Stages Of Same Litigation : Supreme Court Explains 'Interlocutory Res Judicata'

The Supreme Court has held that the principle of res judicata applies even between two stages of the same litigation. This is known as the principle of 'interlocutory res judicata'.

Hence, the dismissal of an earlier application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can bar a subsequent application for plaint rejection on the same ground.

The Court said it is immaterial that the subsequent application seeking a rejection of the plaint was filed by a different person. If the substance of the application remains the same, then the subsequent application would be barred by res judicata.

"The principle (of res judicata) applies not only between two separate suits but also between two stages of the same litigation what is referred to as 'interlocutory res judicata.'", the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the case where the Appellant-daughter's suit seeking a partition of her father's intestate property by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“Act”) as a Class I Heir was contested by some brothers by filing an application seeking a rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC claiming the suit was barred by 2005 amendment to the Act, as it was impermissible for the Appellant to reopen the partition/arrangement took place between the Respondent-brothers before the December, 2004 as per Section 6(5) of the Act.

Although the first application seeking the plaint's rejection was dismissed, the suit continued. Another application was filed, later on, by another defendant, seeking a rejection of the plaint invoking additional grounds under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, having the same substance as that of the primary application, i.e., the suit being barred by the 2005 amendment Act. The only difference between the two applications was that it was filed by different persons.

Aggrieved by the Karnataka High Court's decision to allow the subsequent application rejecting the plaint being barred by law, the Appellant-daughter appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that since the substance of the issue in both the applications was the same, merely filing by the different defendants would not exempt the applicability of the principle of res judicata. The Court said that when different persons litigate under the same title, having the same substance of the issue, i.e., suit being barred by Section 6(5) of the Act, then the subsequent application would be barred by the principle of res judicata.

“The High Court, in the impugned order, sought to avoid the application of res judicata on the ground that the first application was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, whereas the second was filed by the legal representatives of Defendant No. 4. This reasoning does not commend itself to us. All defendants are sons (or their legal representatives) of the same propositus. They share a common interest: they defend the same Partition Deed, resist the same suit for partition, and assert the same plea that the daughters have no right to the suit properties. They litigate under the same title within the meaning of Explanation VI to Section 11 of the CPC, as reproduced above.”, the court observed.

“The substance of the issue, whether the plaint should be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, remains the same.”, the court noted.

Mere invocation of an additional grounds for plaint rejection would not exempt applicability of res judicata when substance of issue remains same

“The ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action [clause (a)] or is defective [clause (b)] could have been, and indeed ought to have been, raised in the first application. The mere invocation of additional sub-clauses in the second application does not take the matter outside the scope of res judicata. The substance of the issue, whether the plaint should be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 6(5) of the H.S. Act, remains the same. A party cannot circumvent the finality of an adverse order by re-framing the same challenge under a different procedural provision.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Interlocutory Res Judicata — Multiple Applications under Order VII Rule 11 — The legal representatives of a defendant filed a second application seeking rejection of the plaint, asserting a 'change in law' - The Supreme Court held that the second application was barred by the principle of res judicata since the identical issue had been directly and substantially raised, heard, and decided on merits against the defendants by the High Court in an earlier round of proceedings, which had attained finality - A party cannot circumvent the finality of an adverse order by re-framing the same challenge under a different sub-clause or procedural provision. [Paras 35-70]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 11, Explanation VI — Joint Defense — Same Title — Where multiple defendants collectively resist a partition suit, share a common interest, defend the same partition deed, and assert an identical plea against the plaintiffs, they litigate under the same title - An earlier final order passed against some of the defendants binds the remaining co-defendants or their legal representatives - They cannot escape the bar of res judicata merely because their specific predecessor was not the applicant in the first round. [Paras 37-70]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6(5) (As amended by Act 39 of 2005) — Nature of Saving Clause vs. Jurisdictional Bar — Section 6(5) protects valid, completed partitions executed before 20.12.2004 from the retroactive reach of the amended coparcenary rights of daughters - It operates as a strict and narrow saving clause providing a defense on the merits, rather than a jurisdictional bar to the institution of a suit - A disputed question regarding whether a registered partition deed executed secretly behind the daughters' backs without assigning them a share is valid and binding cannot be foreclosed at the threshold stage under Order VII Rule 11. [Paras 53-70]

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 8 read with Proviso to erstwhile Section 6 — Independent Succession Rights of Class I Heirs — Devolution on Intestacy — Where a Hindu male died intestate in 1985 leaving behind daughters, his undivided coparcenary interest devolved by intestate succession under Section 8 upon all Class I heirs simultaneously - This right accrued under the unamended Act and remains wholly independent of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - The saving clause under Section 6(5) only limits the retroactive reach of the substituted Section 6; it does not override, abrogate, or extinguish the independent devolution that took place under Section 8 - A partition suit is maintainable, at minimum, to the extent of the daughters' share in the father's property. [Paras 62-70]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Scope of Inquiry — Excessive Relief — Plaint Averments — For the purpose of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be taken as correct, and external defense materials or written statements cannot be considered - A plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because the plaintiffs have claimed a larger or excessive relief (such as partitioning the entire estate rather than just the father's share) than what they may ultimately be entitled to after a trial. [Relied on Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941; Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1; Paras 31 58]

Cause Title: B.S. LALITHA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHUVANESH AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 506

Click here to download judgment

Also from judgment: Hindu Succession Act | 2005 Amendment Does Not Limit Daughters' Pre-Existing Inheritance Rights : Supreme Court