The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the recent case Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Th. Lrs. & Anr. ahs summarised the governing principles of constructive res judicata.The principal issue before the Court was whether a suit seeking declaration of title and possession was barred by constructive res judicata on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to assert the same claim in earlier proceedings concerning specific sale transactions. The Court held that the claim was closely connected neither to the issues raised nor to the relief sought in the earlier proceedings. As a result, the doctrine of constructive res judicata could not be invoked to bar the suit. The Court also cautioned that applying the doctrine too rigidly in the present case would lead to an unfair and unjust result.
The dispute in the current case arose from a series of transactions involving land originally owned by Mahabir Rai. In 1960, July, Mahabir rai transferred 95.80 acres of land to his mother Raj Mohani alias Roopjhari and his son, Makardhwaj Ram. In 1962, Mahabir Rai’s family executed a power of attorney in favour of Rambhajan, who later sold parts of the disputed land. After Rambhajan sought mutation of his name in the revenue records, Makardhwaj Ram filed a suit claiming title and possession. While the High Court held the suit barred by constructive res judicata, the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the earlier proceedings only challenged specific sale deeds and did not require the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title over the larger property. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal.
The Hon’ble court referred to several precedents examining section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Explanation IV dealing with constructive res judicata. Summarising the governing principles, observing that constructive res judicata requires parties to raise all grounds that “might and ought” to have been raised in earlier proceedings. The application of the same depends on the facts of each case and the connection between the omitted ground and the earlier controversy. Th bench further 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.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, holding that the earlier suits only challenged specific sale deeds and did not require the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title over the larger property. Since the need to assert title arose only when Rambhajan later sought mutation of additional land, the suit was not barred by constructive res judicata. Accordingly, the Court restored the plaintiff’s claim.