Constructive Res Judicata Bars Grounds Omitted Due To Negligence : Supreme Court Summarises Principles

Constructive Res Judicata Applies Even To Grounds Omitted Due To Negligence, Inadvertence: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has summarised the governing principles of the doctrine of constructive res judicata, reiterating that parties are required to raise all grounds that "might and ought" to have been raised in earlier proceedings and cannot avoid the doctrine by attributing omissions to negligence, inadvertence or accident.Explaining the rationale behind the doctrine, the Court observed that constructive res judicata is intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings by mandating that all grounds available to a litigant should be urged at the appropriate stage itself.The Court noted that the principle is a deeming fiction in law, but its application is not uniform and depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Its applicability must be determined with due regard to the ambit of the earlier proceedings and the nexus between the omitted issue and the controversy involved in those proceedings.The Bench emphasised that the doctrine is founded on public policy and is aimed at ensuring that a person is not vexed twice over for the same kind of litigation. For this reason, the principle applies not only to civil proceedings but also to writ proceedings under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution.Clarifying the scope of the expression "ought" in the phrase "might and ought", the Court observed that the threshold is higher than mere possibility. Whether a ground ought to have been raised has to be assessed from the perspective of reasonable diligence and the legitimate scope of the litigation."The parties while conducting litigation are expected to apply reasonable diligence," the Court said, adding that courts must examine whether all issues properly arising from the dispute and which ought to have been raised were in fact raised.Importantly, the Court held that the doctrine applies with equal force even when a ground was omitted due to negligence, inadvertence or accident. In such situations, the litigant bears the consequences of the omission."The party therefore commits these errors at their own peril," the Court observed, underscoring that the requirements of "might" and "ought" operate cumulatively and without exception.Summarising the position, the Court held that constructive res judicata bars not only issues that were actually raised and decided earlier, but also those which could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings.The Court summarised the principles as follows :1 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. 2 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' . 3 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. 4 In respect of 'ought' referred above, the said word implies the threshold to be above mere possibility. 5 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? 6 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 Court set aside a Chhattisgarh High Court judgment which had dismissed a suit for declaration of title on the ground of constructive res judicata. The Court noted that there was no occasion in earlier proceedings arising out of specific transactions for the plaintiff-appellant to seek declaration of title.A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment in a property dispute originating from transactions dating back to the 1960s. The dispute concerned land originally belonging to one Mahabir Rai. In July 1960, he transferred 95.80 acres of land to his mother Raj Mohani alias Roopjhari and his son Makardhwaj Ram. Later, in April 1962, Mahabir Rai, his wife Gulmati and his mother executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Mahabir's cousin Rambhajan. Using that authority, Rambhajan sold 21.43 acres of land to one Prem Prakash in January, 1969 and 33.76 acres to one Chandra Sao in February 1969. The power of attorney was subsequently cancelled in June 1969.Two suits challenging the two...

Constructive Res Judicata Bars Grounds Omitted Due To Negligence : Supreme Court Summarises Principles

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Constructive Res Judicata Bars Grounds Omitted Due To Negligence : Supreme Court Summarises Principles

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers