Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Abstract

There will be no res judicata on adverse findings if the suit or appeal is ultimately decided in favour of a party.  Because an appeal lies against a decree in terms of Section 96 of the Code (State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Ranga Reddy, 2020-15 SCC 681), and not merely against findings.

No Res judicata if Appeal could not have been filed

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. B. Ranga Reddy, 2020-15 SCC 681, it is held as under:

• The defendants-State could not file an appeal against a decree which was of a dismissal of a suit simpliciter. The findings on Issue No. 1 against the State could be challenged by way of cross-objections in terms of amended provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code but such filing of cross-objections is not necessary to dispute the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 as the defendants have a right to support the ultimate decree passed by the trial court of dismissal of suit on grounds other than which weighed with the learned trial court. Even in terms of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, the Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to pass any order which ought to have been passed or made in proceedings before it.

In PMA Metripolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, it is observed as under:

• “48. Last but not the least reason to hold that the finding in the Vattipanam Suit recorded by the High Court in its original judgment on canon etc. could not operate as res judicata is where a decree is one of dismissal in favour of the defendants, but there is an adverse finding against him, a plea of res judicata cannot be founded upon that decision because the defendant having succeeded on the other plea had no occasion to go further in appeal against the adverse finding recorded against him [see Midnapur Zamindari Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1922 PC 241 ] …..
• Similarly, in the decision of the Patna High Court in Arjun Singh v. Tara Das Ghosh, AIR 1974 Pat 1 the primary question was whether a party against whom a finding is recorded has got a right of appeal even though the ultimate decision was in his favour and it was held that there was no bar, but what was necessary was that the finding so recorded should operate as res judicata. On facts it was found that the Appellate Court while maintaining the order of dismissal of the suit on preliminary issue recorded findings on other issues which were against the plaintiff, yet the plaintiff was not entitled to file an appeal as the findings on merits which were adverse to him could not operate as res judicata.
• In Sham Nath’s case (Sham Nath Madan vs. Mohammad Abdullah, AIR 1967 J&K 85) the learned Single Judge rejected the plea of res judicata raised on behalf of the plaintiff, but while considering the alternative argument, observed that an adverse finding recorded against a defendant in a suit dismissed could not operate as res judicata unless the adverse finding formed a fundamental part of the decree itself.”

In Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, AIR 1999 SC 3571, the Supreme Court held as under:

• “23. The respondents before us are, therefore, entitled to contend that the finding of the High Court in regard to absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice – (upon which the decree for pecuniary damages in B and C Schedules was based) can be attacked by the respondents for the purpose of sustaining the decree of the High Court refusing to pass a decree for non-pecuniary damages as per the A Schedule. The filing of cross-objections against the adverse finding was not obligatory. There is no res judicata. …” (Quoted in: Mohammed v. Chandrika, ILR 2010-3 Ker  358; 2010-3 KHC 233;  2010-3 KLT 306)

In Balu Mahadeo Randhir v. Nabilal Haji Habib Gadiwale, 1997-2 BomCR 462; 1997-1 MhLJ 302, it is oheld as under:

• “Where a suit is dismissed, the defendant against whom an adverse finding might have come to be recorded on some issue has no right of appeal and he canot question those findings before the Appellate Court. Inasmuch as the defendant could not have filed an appeal, the decision in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 298 of 1971 cannot act as res judicata…”

In Bakerbag Subhanbeg Vs. Shrikant Laxminarayan Zanwar: 2008-3 All MR 656 it is pointed out that an appeal would lie against only those findings that amount to a ‘decree’ or ‘order’ that falls under Section 96 or Section 100 CPC. Similarly, no appeal lies against an Order under Section 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1. In Bakerbag Subhanbeg earlier decisions were referred to in detail. It includes the following:

• Midanpur Zamindari Co. v. Naresh Narayan Roy, AIR 1922 PC 241; 
  Run Bahadur Singh v. Lucnokoer,  ILR (1885)11 Cal 301 (PC); 
  Pateswari Din v. Mahant Sarjudass, AIR 1938 Oudh 18;
  Bansi Lal Ratwa v. Laxminarayan, 1969-2 AWR 246,
  Arjun Singh v. Tara Das Ghosh, AIR 1974 Pat 1.

Res Judicata: The issue should have been necessary to be decided

In PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, it is held as under:

• “57. It is fairly settled that the finding on an issue in the earlier suit to operate as res judicate should not have been only directly and substantially in issue but it should have been necessary to be decided as well.”

It is the appellate decision that operates as res judicata

PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, continued as under:

• “When a decision is taken in appeal the rule is that it is the appellate decision and not the decision of the Trial Court that operates as res judicata.”

Appeal dismissed on limitation; Trial Court decision on merits ceases to be final

PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, further continued as under:

• “Where a suit is decided both on merits and on technical grounds by the Trial Court, and the appellate court maintains it on technical ground of limitation or suit being not properly constituted then the decision rendered on merits by the Trial Court ceases to have finality.
• In Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass AIR 1917 PC 201 the Court while considering the expression, `heard and finally decided’ in Section 10 of the British Baluchistan Regulation IX of 1896 held that where the suit was dismissed by two courts on merits but the decree was maintained in second appeal because the suit was not properly constituted then the finality on merits stood destroyed.”  (The apex Court also referred to Sheosagar Singh & Ors. v. Sitaram Singh ILR 1897 Cal. Vol. XXIV. )
• “58. The rationale of these decisions is founded on the principle that if the suit was disposed of in appeal not on merits but for want of jurisdiction or for being barred by time or for being defectively constituted then the finality of the findings recorded by the Trial Court on merits stands destroyed as the suit having been found to be bad for technical reasons it becomes operative from the date the decision was given by the trial court thus rendering any adjudication on merits impliedly unnecessary. “

Finding in Review Sustains; Other Earlier Findings Not Res Judicate

PMA Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, proceeded further as under:

• “58. …. On the same rationale, once the Royal Court of Appeal allowed the Review Petition and dismissed the appeal as the ex-communication of Dionysius was contrary to principles of natural justice and he had not become heretic then the finding on authenticity of the canon etc. rendered in the original order was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, the finding recorded on the authenticity of the canon and power of the Patriarch etc. recorded in the earlier order could not operate as res judicate in subsequent proceedings.”

No Res Judicata on a Finding on Title, in an Injunction Suit and in Probate Action

An incidental finding will not constitute res judicata.

In Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350, it is observed as under:

• “24. Before parting with this point, we would like to refer to two more rulings. In Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair [(1994) 2 SCC 14] this Court held that a finding as to title given in an earlier injunction suit would be res judicata in a subsequent suit on title. On the other hand, the Madras High Court, in Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthira-soma-sundareswarar Temple v. Rajanga Asari [AIR 1965 Mad 355 : ILR (1965) 1 Mad 232] held (see para 8 therein) that the previous suit was only for injunction relating to the crops. Maybe, the question of title was decided, though not raised in the plaint. In the latter suit on title, the finding in the earlier suit on title would not be res judicata as the earlier suit was concerned only with a possessory right. These two decisions, in our opinion, cannot be treated as being contrary to each other but should be understood in the context of the tests referred to above. Each of them can perhaps be treated as correct if they are understood in the light of the tests stated above. In the first case decided by this Court, it is to be assumed that the tests above-referred to were satisfied for holding that the finding as to possession was substantially rested on title upon which a finding was felt necessary and in the latter case decided by the Madras High Court, it must be assumed that the tests were not satisfied. As stated in Mulla, it all depends on the facts of each case and whether the finding as to title was treated as necessary for grant of an injunction in the earlier suit and was also the substantive basis for grant of injunction. In this context, we may refer to Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 50, para 735, p. 229) where a similar aspect in regard to findings on possession and incidental findings on title were dealt with. It is stated:
• “Where title to property is the basis of the right of possession, a decision on the question of possession is res judicata on the question of title to the extent that adjudication of title was essential to the judgment; but where the question of the right to possession was the only issue actually or necessarily involved, the judgment is not conclusive on the question of ownership or title.””
• (Quoted and followed in: M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula, Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 273; 27.02.2025)

The Apex Court (Sulochana Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14) also pointed out as under:

• “The decision in earlier case on the issue between the same parties or persons under whom they claim title or litigating under the same title, it operates as a res-judicata. A plea decided even in a suit for injunction touching title between the same parties, would operate as res-judicata. It is a settled law that in a Suit for injunction when title is in issue, for the purpose of granting injunction, the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties when the same is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit, the decree in injunction suit equally operates as a res-judicata.”

In the locus classicus, Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, the Supreme Court held that where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. It is clear that findings of title in such suits are redundant so far as res judicata is concerned, the Court proceeded to hold as under:

• “21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
• (a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
• (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
• (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
• (d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”
• (Quoted and followed in: M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula, Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 273; 27.02.2025)

(Both, Sulochana Amma and Anathula Sudhakar are referred to in T. Ravi Vs. B. Chinna Narasimha, 2017-7 SCC 342)

In Hem Nolini Judah v. Isolync Saroibashini Bose, AIR 1962 (SC) 1471, it was held that questions of title are not decided in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration.

• See Blog: No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Declaration and Injunction

Appellate Decision Operates As Res Judicata

Decree of a lower court merges with the decree of the appellate court. Hence appellate decree is to be looked into to determine res judicata. In PMA Metripolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001, it is observed as under:

• “If the ex-communication of Dionysius was invalid for violation of principles of natural justice, as was found by the Bench reviewing the order, then the findings on earlier issues were rendered unnecessary and it is fairly settled that the finding on an issue in the earlier suit to operate as res judicata should not have been only directly and substantially in issue but it should have been necessary to be decided as well. For instance, when a decision is taken in appeal the rule is that it is the appellate decision and not the decision of the Trial Court that operates as res judicata. Consequently where a suit is decided both on merits and on technical grounds by the Trial Court, and the appellate court maintains it on technical ground of limitation or suit being not properly constituted then the decision rendered on merits by the Trial Court ceases to have finality. In Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass AIR 1917 PC 201 the Court while considering the expression, `heard and finally decided’ in Section 10 of the British Baluchistan Regulation IX of 1896 held that where the suit was dismissed by two courts on merits but the decree was maintained in second appeal because the suit was not properly constituted then the finality on merits stood destroyed. In Sheosagar Singh & Ors. v. Sitaram Singh ILR 1897 Cal. Vol. XXIV where parentage of defendant was decided in his favour by the Trial Court but the High Court maintained the order as the suit was defective the claim of the defendant in the latter suit that the finding on parentage operated as res judicata was repelled and it was held, that the question of parentage had not been heard and finally decided in the suit of 1885. The appeal in that suit had put an end to any finality in the decision of the first Court, and had not led to a decision on the merits.”

Res Judicata on Ex Parte Decree

An ex-parte decree might also will constitute res judicata if the defendant  had express notice of the pleadings and the prayer that a particular issue or matter would be decided.

• (State of UP v. Jagdish Saran Agrawal: AIR  2008 SC 817;
• Raj Lakshmi Dasi v. Banamali Sen – AIR 1953 SC 33;
• Ram Gobinda Dawan v. Bhaktabala – AIR 1971 SC 664;
• Pandurang v. Shantabai – AIR 1989 SC 2240;
• Thiruvengadam Mammad v. Chathamkara Ammad – AIR 1929 Madras 89;   
• H.R  C.E. Commissioner v. V. Krishnaswami – AIR 1975 Madras 167).

Whether a Consent/Compromise Decree Operates as Res judicata

In Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao, AIR 1967 SC 591, the Supreme Court observed as under:

• “….A compromise decree is not a decision by the Court. It is acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties had agreed. The decree merely sets the seal of the Court on the agreement of the parties. The Court does not decide anything. Nor can it be said that the decision of the Court was implicit in it. Only that decision by the Court can be res judicata where the case has been heard and decided on merit . … the statutory prohibition under Sec. 11 of the code of civil procedure or that of constructive res judicata would apply as a matter of public policy ….. Such a decree cannot strictly be regarded as a decision on the matter which was heard and finally decided, and cannot operate as res judicata. ..”. 
• See also: Daryao v. State of UP, 1962- I SCR 574;
• Vidya Sagar v. Sudesh Kumari, 1976-1 SCC 115;
• Jamia Masjid v. K. V.  Rudrappa, AIR 2021 SC 4523; 2022-9 SCC 225.

It is held in Baldevdas Shivlal v. Filmistan Distributors (I) P. Ltd., AIR 1970 SC 406, that ‘a matter in contest in a suit may operate as res judicata only if there is an adjudication by the Court’. 

Ratio Decidendi is the Binding Precedent; Not  Findings on Facts or Issues

In Jagdish Prasad v. State of MP, 2004(4) MPLJ 537, it was held by the Supreme Court as under:

• “Any observation made or relief given by a Court, out of sympathy, compassion, sentiments and not based on any discernible principle of law or de hors the merits of the case, cannot be a binding precedent. A judgment of a Court contains three parts :
  • (i) finding of facts;
  • (ii) statement of principle of law applicable to the legal problem raised on the facts, based on which the case is decided; and
  • (iii) decision which is based on the finding of fact, applicable principles of law, and in some cases, discretion and the need to mould the relief in a particular manner.
• Out of the three parts, it is only the second part, that is ratio decidendi or statement of law applied and acted upon by the Court, that is a binding precedent. Neither the findings on facts nor the ultimate decision, that is, the relief given or the manner adopted to dispose of the case, is a precedent.” (Quoted in: Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara v. A. K.  Chaturvedi, 2012-1 JLJ 78; 2012-1 MPLJ 282)

In A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001)3 SCC 537], the Supreme Court observed that where no consideration was given to the question, the decision cannot be said to be binding; and precedents sub silentio and without arguments are of no moment. (Referred to in: Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara v. A. K.  Chaturvedi, 2012-1 JLJ 78; 2012-1 MPLJ 282.)

Res Judicata Binds Parties; Ratio Decidendi (as Binding Precedent) Binds Courts

In The Modern English Legal System (4th Edition) by Smith, Bailey and Gunn (Sweet & Maxwell, 2002), pages 518-519, says as under:

• “…. Thus the Court’s order is binding on the parties under the res judicata doctrine; the ratio decidendi is binding on other Courts in accordance with the principles outlined above under the doctrine of binding precedent. A startling illustration of the distinction was provided by the following series of cases. A testator, John Arkle Waring, left annuities to Mr. Howard and Mrs. Louie Burton-Butler ‘free of income tax’. In 1942 the Court of Appeal in Re warning, Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Awdry : (1942) Ch. 426 on an appeal in which Howard was a party, held that income tax had to be deducted. Louie was not a party as she was in an enemy occupied country. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. Four years later the House of Lords in Berke¬ley v. Berkeley : (1946) A.C. 555 overruled the Awdry case. Subsequently, Jenkins J. held that the Awdry case was res judica¬ta so far as Howard was concerned notwithstanding that its ratio had been overruled in Berkeley v. Berkeley and that Louie’s annuity would be dealt with in accordance with the later case. (See Re Warning, Westminster Bank v. Burton-Butler : (1948) Ch. 221).”
• (Quoted in: Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India (AK Ganguly, CJ, then) 2007-104 CLT 737, Ori)

Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley’s Commentary on the Doctrine of res judicata (Butterworths: London, Edinburgh, Dublin – 1996, pages 8 and 9), explains the concept of res judicata as under:

• “There is an essential difference between res judicata estoppel and the doctrine of judicial precedent. Under the former a final decision in fact or law by any Court having jurisdiction precludes either party (except on appeal) from again raising the same issue against the other in any Court. The doctrine of judicial precedent, on the other hand, is not concerned with issues between parties. …
• The difference is illustrated by the cases of Re Waring decided in 1942 and 1948. In the first Farwell J held that Section 25 of the Finance Act 1941 was not applicable (1942) Ch. 309 to an annuity; but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision. (1942) Ch. 426. The effect was two-fold; it decided as res judicata between the parties that Section 25 applied, and it bound Courts up to the Court of Appeal in other cases. In Berkeley v. Bekeley (1946) AC 555, the House of Lords overruled Re Waring. In 1948 the trustees sought a decision as between themselves and the annuitant who had not been joined in the first proceedings. (1948) Ch. 221. The other annuitant remained bound by the earlier decision, but the result (see Duke of Bedford v. Elliz : (1901) AC 1 at 8), was otherwise governed by Berkeley v. Berkeley: Gisborne Sheepfarmers’ Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. IRC : (1962) NZLR 810 at 814.” (Quoted in: Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India (AK Ganguly, CJ, then) 2007-104 CLT 737, Ori)

In State of M.P. v. Mulam Chandi, AIR 1973 MP293, it has been held as under:

• “As between a decision which operates a s res judicata and a decision which is binding as a precedent but not res judicata, the former must prevail.”

Interpretation of a Document can Be A Binding Judicial Precedent

In Sahu Madho Dass v. Mukand Ram, 1955 AIR SC 481, it was observed out as under:

• “Mukand Ram was not a party to that litigation and the decision does not bind him but it operates as a judicial precedent about the construction of that document, a precedent with which we respectfully agree.”
• (Referred to in: Syed Hafiz Mir v. Abdul Nayeemkhan, AIR 1960  MP 50; Potluri Saraswathi v. Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao, 2004-7 ALT 120; Harabati v. Jasodhara Debi, AIR 1977  Ori  143; Ramachandra Bhat v. Srideviamma, AIR 1976 Kar 217; Katragadda China Anjaneyulu v. Kattragadda China Ramayya, 1965  AIR AP 177.)

In R. V. Bhupal Prasad v. Saleha Begum, 2002 Supp2 ALD 735; 2001-5 ALT 770, it is pointed out that in Anjaneyulu v. Ramaiah, 1965-1 ALT 149, a Full Bench of the Andhra High Court held that interpretation of a material document in a prior proceeding between the same parties even if does not operate as res judicata would be a binding judicial precedent in a subsequent proceeding between the parties based on that document.

Even an erroneous decision operates as Res Judicata

In Bindeswari v. Bageshwari, AIR 1936 PC 46, it was held as under:

• “Where the decision of the Court in a previous suit determined that the section had never applied to a transaction, a Court in a new suit between the same parties with regard to the same transaction cannot try a new the issue as to its applicability in face of the express prohibition in Section 11 of the Code. “

In Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna, AIR 1953 SC 65 it was laid down  as under:

• “(23) There is ample authority for the proposition that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. A decision in the previous execution case between the parties that the matter was not within the competence of the executing court even though erroneous is binding on the parties; see Abhoy Kanta Gohain v. Gopinath Deb Goswami AIR 1943 Cal. 460.”

Erroneous decision on a Question of Law does not Operate as Res Judicata

In Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228, (relying on S.P.A. Annamalay Chetty v. B.A. Thornhill AIR 1931 PC 263) it is held as under:

• “An erroneous judgment on a question of law, which sanctions something that is illegal, also cannot be allowed to operate as res judicata.”

In Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, (1996) 6 SCC 424, it is held that when the previous decision was found to be erroneous on its face, such judgment cannot operate as res judicata (referred to in: Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228).

In Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla, (2005) 5 SCC 390, it is held that in view of the changed position in law consequent to a contrary interpretation put on Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by V. Tulasamma v. V. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99, the earlier decree based on judgments that were overruled cannot operate as res judicata (referred to in: Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228).

In Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228it is held – Where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata

Erroneous decision on Jurisdiction of Court – Not Operate as Res Judicata

In Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613, it is observed as under:

• “9. A question of jurisdiction of the Court, or of procedure, or a pure question of law unrelated to the right of the parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in the subsequent suit. Rankin, C.J., observed in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee’s case:
  • “The object of the doctrine of res judicata is not to fasten upon parties special principles of law as applicable to them inter se, but to ascertain their rights and the facts upon which these rights directly and substantially depend; and to prevent this ascertainment from becoming nugatory by precluding the parties from reopening or recontesting that which has been finally decided.”
• 10. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise.
• 11. It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by a competent Court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding between the same parties may not, for the same reason, be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But, where the decision is on a question of law i.e. the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties where the cause of action is the same, for the expression “the matter in issue” in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure means the right litigated between the parties i.e. the facts on which the right is claimed or denied and the law applicable to the determination of that issue. Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of that order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land.” (Quoted in: Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228)

In Canara Bank v. N. G. Subbaraya Setty, AIR 2018 SC3395; 2018-16 SCC 228, it is pointed out that Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613, has been followed in a number of cases. In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 SCC 193, following Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal, it is held that where there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction, which depends upon a wrong decision, the earlier wrong decision cannot be res judicata. In Isabella Johnson (Smt.) v. M.A. Susai (1991) 1 SCC 494, after setting out the law contained in Mathura Prasad, stated that a Court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferred with jurisdiction by applying the principle of res judicata, as it is well settled that there is no estoppel on a pure question of law which relates to jurisdiction.

No Binding Precedent if relevant statutory provision was Not considered

In Union of India v. Maniklal Banerjee, AIR 2006 SC 2844, the Apex Court has held as under:

• “It is now well-settled that if a decision has been rendered without taking into account the statutory provision, the same cannot be considered to be a binding precedent. This Court, in Pritam Singh, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction, might have refused to interfere with the decision. The same, therefore, did not constitute any binding precedent.” (Referred to in: Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain (Arun Misra, J.), ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472)

Arun Misra, J., referred to the House of Lords’ decision in Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain, ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472, and said as under:

• “(35) Another decision relied upon is rendered by the House of Lords in Watt vs. Ahsan (2007) UKHL 51. In the aforesaid case, question arose on Section 12 of the Race Relations Act, 1976. The submission was made that they were party and that All vs. Mcdonagh (2002) ICR 1026 was wrongly decided. In any case, the interpretation given to Section 12 by the EAT in Sawyer v. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 is res judicata between him and the Labour Party, not only for the purposes of his first complaint but for the other two as well. It was opined that the EAT was wrong in Sawyer vs. Ahsan (2000) ICR 1 to hold that the Labour Party was a qualifying body, but there was no appeal against the decision of EAT , it was held that decision was binding upon the parties though wrong in law. When the Tribunal was-having the jurisdiction to decide the question, it is binding upon the parties though erroneous.
• There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, but here we are concerned with the fresh cause of action on which suit is based and previously relevant statutory provision of Section 111 (d) of TP Act was not taken into consideration, question of determination of tenancy was also not decided.”

Exceptions to the Rule of Res Judicata

Arun Misra, J., pointed out as regards Rule of Res Judicata, in Hameeda Begum v. Champa Bai Jain, ILR 2009 MP 2328; 2009-3 MPLJ 472 (referring to State of MP. v. Mulamchand 1973 MPLJ 832), as under:

• ( 36 ) …. The rule admits of certain exceptions.
  • One is that where the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, it will not operate as res judicata if in the subsequent suit it is found to be erroneous because the question of jurisdiction is unrelated to rights claimed by one party and denied by other.
  • Another exception is where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata between the same parties.
  • Third exception is that a decision of a Court sanctioning something which is illegal does not operate as res judicata, and a party affected by the decision is not precluded from challenging its validity.
• In the instant case, the earlier decisions rendered by this Court were not on the question of law of merger of tenancy into co-ownership and section 111 (d) of the TP Act was not considered, thus, it cannot be said to be operating as res judicata in the present suit based on fresh cause of action of ejectment of tenant and title. Tenant has protection under Rent Act, he can be evicted only on availability of ground under Section 12 of the Act. It is a question pertaining to jurisdiction to evict. There is no finding of fact which is coming in the way in the instant suit. The main question is that of the status of the defendants and beyond iota of doubt, they are tenants and tenancy is not determined by the fact that only portion of the property had been purchased by one of the heirs of the original tenant.”

Whether O. I, r. 8 Decree is Res Judicata 

Order I rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enables the plaintiffs to file a suit in a representative capacity for the benefit of a class of (numerous) persons.

Whether the decree in such a suit operates as res judicata against the persons who are represented remains as a controversy.  In any event, by the insertion of Sub-rule (6) to rule 8 of Order I, in 1976, it became legitimate to say that the decree stands as res judicata. Sub-rule (6) lays down that a decree passed in a suit under rule 8 shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended.

Therefore, the view taken in Srinivasa Aiyankar v. Aryar Srinivasa Aiyankar, (1910) ILR 33 Mad 483 : 6 IC 229, that the decisions do not bind on those who were not actually (eo nominee)  parties (and hence not res judicata and not enforceable in execution)  does not hold good at present. This view in Srinivasa Aiyankar had been taken in following cases (prior to 1976) also:

• Sahib Thampi v. Hamid, 36 Mad. 414
• Walker v. Sur, 1914-2 KB 930
• Hardie and Lane Limited v. Chiltern, 1928-1 KB 663
• Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar. AIR 1955 Mad 281

It is noteworthy that even when Sub-r. (6) of r. 8 of O. I was not available in the Code, it was observed in Waryam Singha v. Sher Singh, AIR 1942 Lah 136, that the decree for injunction could be executed against any of the persons who were represented under O. 1 r. 8 CPC; because,  all the persons who were represented must be held to be parties as the decree obtained in such a suit was binding on all of them. This view is taken in following cases also:

• Mool Chandra Jain v. Jagdish Chandra Joshi, AIR 1955 All 385
• Abdulla v. Parshotam Singh, AIR  1935 Lah 33
• Jatindra Mohan Banerje v. Kali Charan, AIR 1960 Cal 623

Relying on Shri V. J. Thomas v. Shri Pathrose Abraham, AIR 2008 SC 1503, and Kodia Goundar Vs. Velandi Goundar, AIR 1955 Mad 281, the Kerala High Court has in Narayanan V. Periyadan Narayanan Nair, 2021 (3) KHC 211 (FB) held that execution of a decree is not possible if he was not impleaded as a defendant. The Full Bench overruled James Vs. Mathew (ILR 2012-4 Ker 753, 2012-4 Ker 640, 2012-4 Ker LT 666, 2012-4 KHC 604 ), which held that a decree for injunction obtained in a representative suit is binding on all persons for whose benefit the suit was defended, though they were not eo nomine parties to the suit; and that in case of wilful disobedience of such a decree by those persons for whose benefit the suit was defended, it is enforceable against them under r. 32 of O. XXI of the Code.

See Blog: Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties

Res Judicata, Order II Rule 2 Bar and Sec. 10 CPC

Sec. 11 CPC and Order II rule 2 CPC bar suit/relief. But, Sec. 10 CPC bars trial only. Because:

• Sec. 11 CPC (Res Judicata) begins as – “No Court shall try any suit or issue”.
• Order II Rule 2 bars to – “sue for any relief omitted“.
• Sec. 10 CPC (Res sub judice – Latin: ‘under judgment’) begins as – “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit“.

See Blog: Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice for the Same Cause of Action

Change of Law and Res judicata

When the law has been changed, subsequent to a decision rendered by a Court, it is held in Alimunnissa Chowdharani v. Shyam Charan Roy, 1905-1 CLJ 176, that the earlier decision would not operate as res judicata.

In Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, 1970-1 SCC 613, it is observed that when the law has undergone a change, there would be no question of res judicata or constructive res judicata. It is observed as under:

• “5. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties: the “matter in issue” may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and fact decided by a competent court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be reopened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata: the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transactions which is the soured of the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision of law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law. …….
• 7. Where the law is altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as res judicata between the same, parties: Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee’s case. It is obvious that the matter in issue in a subsequent proceeding is not the same as in the previous proceeding, because the law interpreted is different.”

Can res judicata be raised as a preliminary point/issue

The Kerala High Court in V. Narayana Bhakthan v. The President, Anantha Narayanapuram, 2008-3 Ker LT 840 it is held as under:

• “The question of res judicata can be raised as a preliminary point in certain circumstances. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the CPC states that where issues, both of law and of fact, arise in the same suit, and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to: (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by law for the time being in force. The said sub-rule also provides that the Court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. In ML Sethi v. RP Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379, it was held that it is well settled that a plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the court and a finding on the plea in favour of the party raising it would oust the jurisdiction of the court. If the question of res judicata can be decided without reference to the disputed questions of fact and without the necessity of there being any evidence to be adduced, the Court would be justified in dealing with the said contention as a preliminary issue. However, if the Court finds that disputed questions of fact are involved or that the plea of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, the Court is not bound to decide the said question as a preliminary issue.”

Effect of failure to raise bar of res judicata as a preliminary issue

In V. Narayana Bhakthan v. The President, Anantha Narayanapuram, 2008-3 Ker LT 840, it is held, further as under:

• Even if a party, who is entitled to request the court to consider the contention of res judicata as a preliminary issue, fails to make a request in that behalf at the appropriate time, that does not operate as a bar for him to raise the contention of res judicata at the final stage of the suit. Such a contention would not be barred by res judicata by his not requesting the same to be considered as a preliminary issue. On the other hand, if such a question is raised as a preliminary issue and a decision is rendered against the party raising it, he would be precluded at a later stage of the same proceeding from raising the very same contention that the suit is barred by res judicata except by challenging the final decision in Appeal.”

S. Nagaraj (dead) by LRs. VS B. R. Vasudeva Murthy, 08 Feb 2010
2010 2 AIR(Kar)(R) 274; 2010 Supp AIR(SC) 551; 2010 0 AIR(SCW) 1519; 2010 2 JT 185; 2010 3 KarLJ 513; 2010 Supp1 KLT 95; 2010 2 Scale 232; 2010 3 SCC 353; 2010 1 SCC(Civ) 695; 2010 4 SCJ 258; 2010 2 SCR 586; 2010 2 SLT 441; 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 140;

Correctness of the Finding has no bearing

Rankin, C.J. of the Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee v. Kedar Nath Haldar,AIR 1928 Cal. 777 held as under:

• “The question whether decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing upon the question whether it operates or does not operate as res judicata.”

Res Judicata in Writ Proceedings

Our Apex Court observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala, AIR 2014 SC 2407; 2014-12 SCC 696as under:

• “156. The rule of res judicata is not merely a technical rule but it is based on high public policy. The rule embodies a principle of public policy, which in turn, is an essential part of the rule of law. In Duchess of Kingston; 2 Smith Lead Cas 13 Ed. Pp. 644, 645, the House of Lords (in the opinion of Sir William de Grey) has observed:
  • “From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true: first, that the judgment of a court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another court; secondly, that the judgment of a court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is, in like manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another court, for a different purpose.”
• 157. Corpus Juris explains that res judicata is a rule of universal law pervading every well-regulated system of jurisprudence, and is put upon two grounds, embodied in various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; and the other, the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause.
• 158. In Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prashad Narayan Singh; [AIR 1916 PC 78], Sir Lawrence Jenkins noted the statement of law declared by Lord Coke, ‘interest reipublica ut sit finis litium,’ otherwise great oppression might be done under colour and pretence of law. – (6 Coke, 9A.)
• 159. In Daryao and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.; [AIR 1961 SC 1457], P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. while explaining the rule of res judicata stated that on general considerations of public policy there seems to be no reason why rule of res judicata should be treated as inadmissible or irrelevant while dealing with the petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. P.B. Gajendragadkar, J. referred to earlier decision of this Court in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Dr. Shree Krishna Sinha and Ors.; [AIR 1960 SC 1186] wherein the application of the rule of res judicata to a petition filed under Article 32 was considered and it was observed that the question determined by the previous decision of this Court cannot be reopened and must govern the rights and obligations of the parties which are subsequently the same.
• 160. In Gulab Chand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Bombay; [(1965) 2 SCR 547], this Court stated that a decision in a writ petition is res judicata in a subsequent suit.
• 161. In Union of India v. Nanak Singh; [(1968) 2 SCR 887 : AIR 1968 SC 1370] the question whether the decision in a writ petition operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed on the same cause of action has been settled. In Nanak Singh, this court observed that there is no good reason to preclude decisions on matters in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution from operating as res judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and, thus, to give limited effect to the principle of finality of decision after full contest.
• 162. Union of India v. Nanak Singh; [(1968) 2 SCR 887 : AIR 1968 SC 1370] has been followed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Bua Das Kaushal; [ (1970) 3 SCC 656]. In our view, the rule of res judicata which is founded on public policy prevents not only a new decision in the subsequent suit but also prevents new investigation. It prevents the defendant from setting up a plea in a subsequent suit which was decided between the parties in the previous proceedings. The legal position with regard to rule of res judicata is fairly well-settled that the decision on a matter in controversy in writ proceeding (Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution) operates as res judicata in subsequent suit on the same matters in controversy between the same parties. For the applicability of rule of res judicata it is not necessary that the decision in the previous suit must be the decision in the suit so as to operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. A decision in previous proceeding, like under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution, which is not a suit, will be binding on the parties in the subsequent suit on the principle of res judicata.
• 163. For the applicability of rule of res judicata, the important thing that must be seen is that the matter was directly and substantially in issue in the previous proceeding and a decision has been given by the Court on that issue. A decision on issue of fact in the previous proceeding – such proceeding may not be in the nature of suit – constitutes res judicata in the subsequent suit.
• 164. In light of the above legal position, if the 2006 judgment is seen, it becomes apparent that after considering the contentions of the parties and examining the reports of Expert Committee, this Court posed the issue for determination about the safety of the dam to increase the water level to 142 ft. and came to a categorical finding that the dam was safe for raising the water level to 142 ft. and, accordingly, in the concluding paragraph the Court disposed of the writ petition and the connected matters by permitting the water level of Mullaperiyar dam being raised to 142 ft. and also permitted further strengthening of the dam as per the report of the Expert Committee appointed by the CWC. The review petition filed against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 27.7.2006. The 2006 judgment having become final and binding, the issues decided in the said proceedings definitely operate as res judicata in the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution.
• 165. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for Kerala, placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in N.D. Jayal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.; [(2004) 9 SCC 362]. In N.D. Jayal69 Dharmadhikari, J. made general observations on the dam safety aspect that plea like res judicata on the earlier decisions passed by the Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be raised. The observations made by Dharmadhikari, J. in N.D. Jayal have to be read as an exception to the res judicata rule in the matters where, by their very nature, the factual situation has drastically changed in course of time. If substantial changes in the circumstances occur and such circumstances are shown to the Court necessitating departure from the earlier finding on the issue of safety, the Court can be approached and in that event the Court itself may exercise its discretion to reopen the safety aspect having regard to the drastic change in circumstances or in emergent situation as to the safety of dam. In our view, a judicial decision, having achieved finality, becomes the last word and can be reopened in the changed circumstances by that Court alone and no one else.
• 166. On behalf of Kerala, it is contended that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is ousted or excluded in respect of disputes between two or more States: since such disputes fall within the ambit of the original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution or jurisdiction of a tribunal constituted under the provisions of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 read with the provisions of Article 262 of the Constitution. Thus, it was submitted that the 2006 judgment is not binding and that the rule of res judicata can hardly be attracted in this situation.
• 167. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for Kerala. The label of jurisdiction exercised by this Court is not material for applicability of principles of res judicata if the matter in issue in the subsequent suit has already been concluded by the earlier decision of this Court between the same parties. The 2006 judgment was the result of judicial investigation, founded upon facts ascertained in the course of hearing. The plea of lack of jurisdiction of this Court was taken in the earlier proceedings on both the grounds, viz.,
•        (1) whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred in view of Article 262 read with Section 11 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and
•        (2) whether Article 363 of the Constitution bars the jurisdiction of this Court. On both these questions the findings were recorded against Kerala. It is too much for Kerala to say that the 2006 judgment is without jurisdiction and not binding.
• xxxxx
• 169. Explanations VII and VIII were inserted in the above provision by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 1.2.1977. Explanation VIII in this regard is quite relevant. The principles of res judicata, thus, have been made applicable to cases which are tried by Courts of limited jurisdiction. The decisions of the Courts of limited jurisdiction, insofar as such decisions are within the competence of the Courts of limited jurisdiction, operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, although, the Court of limited jurisdiction that decided the previous suit may not be competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such question is subsequently raised. If a decision of the Court of limited jurisdiction, which was within its competence, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit even when the subsequent suit is not triable by it, a fortiori, the decision of the highest Court of the land in whatever jurisdiction given on an issue which was directly raised, considered and decided must operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit triable exclusively by the highest Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. Any other view in this regard will be inconsistent with the high public policy and rule of law. The judgment of this Court directly upon the point, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question before this Court, though, label of jurisdiction is different.
• 170. The principles of res judicata are clearly attracted in the present case. The claim of Kerala in the earlier proceeding that water level cannot be raised from its present level of 136 ft. was expressly not accepted and the obstruction by Kerala to the water level in the Mullaperiyar dam being raised to 142 ft. on the ground of safety was found untenable. The judgment dated 27.2.2006 of this Court, thus, operates as res judicata in respect of the issue of safety of the dam by increasing its water level from 136 ft. to 142 ft.”

End Notes 1:

Sec. 11 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, reads as under:

• Res Judicata -No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
• Explanation I– The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
• Explanation II.- For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
• Explanation III.- The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
• Explanation IV.- Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
• Explanation V.- Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• Explanation VI– Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
• Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
• Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

End Notes 2:

A party cannot challenge the findings without filing a Cross-Appeal.

In Laxman Tatyaba Kankate v. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak [(2010) 7 SCC 717], the Supreme Court held that though a party is entitled to support the decree on other grounds, he cannot challenge the findings without filing a cross appeal.

Also see:

---

• Union of India v. Vijay Krishna Uniyal, (2018)11 SCC 382. (referred to in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Madanlal,2019-2 JLJ 568; 2019 3 MPLJ 353)
• Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003)9 SCC 606 (referred to in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Madanlal,2019-2 JLJ 568; 2019 3 MPLJ 353)
• Hardevinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh, 2014(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 126 (referred to in Indrakumar v. Atmaram, 2015-3 MhLJ 613)
• Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 98 (referred to in Indrakumar v. Atmaram, 2015-3 MhLJ 613)
• Tummalla Atchaiah v. Venka Narasingarao, AIR 1978 SC 725 (referred to in Indrakumar v. Atmaram, 2015-3 MhLJ 613)
• Hasanate Taheriyyah Fidayyiah vs. Mahesh, 2014(2) Mh.L.J. 884, (6) Surjansingh s/o Mohansingh v. Jasbir Kaur, 2008(2) Mh.L.J. 763.

End Notes 3:

No Modification of Decree if No Cross Appeal

In Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003)9 SCC 606, our Apex Court held as under:

• “We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the absence of cross appeal preferred or cross objection taken by the plaintiff-respondent the First Appellate Court did not have jurisdiction to modify the decree in the manner in which it has done. Within the scope of appeals preferred by the appellants the First Appellate Court could have either allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit filed by the respondent in its entirety or could have deleted the latter part of the decree which granted the decree for specific performance conditional upon failure of the defendant to deposit the money in terms of the decree or could have maintained the decree as it was passed by dismissing the appeals. What the First Appellate Court has done is not only to set aside the decree to the extent to which it was in favour of the appellants but also granted an absolute and out and out decree for specific performance of agreement to sell which is to the prejudice of the appellants and to the advantage of the respondent who has neither filed an appeal nor taken any cross objection.
  The learned counsel for the respondent forcefully argued that even in the absence of appeal preferred by the plaintiff or cross objection taken by the plaintiff-respondent the Appellate Court was not powerless to grant the decree which it has done in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 33 of Order 41 of the CPC. Rule 33 of Order 41 as also Rule 4 thereof, which have to be read necessarily together, are set out hereunder:
  ORDER 41 Appeals from Original Decrees
  • “33. Power of Court of Appeal.-The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees:
    Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.
    Illustration A claims a sum of money as due to him from X or Y, and in a suit against both obtains a decree against X. X, appeals and A and Y are respondents. The Appellate Court decides in favour of X. It has power to pass a decree against Y.
    4. One of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all.-Where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
• Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by Incorporation’
• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
• When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and  (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?
• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal Case
• BURDEN of PROOF: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts

Recovery of Possession: 

• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent Title
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force
• Ryotwari System in Madras

Adverse Possession

• Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview
• What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
• Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (AIR 2024 SC 5374) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse Possession
• Adverse Possession: How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation  
• The Laws of ‘Doctrine of Election’ and ‘Doctrine of Waiver’

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Deserves Stronger Equity than a Prior Contract Holder
• Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree

Land Reform Laws

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.  
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Sec. 65B

• Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or Directory
• Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the Copy.
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker
• Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling Deeds
• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the Property
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal Proof)
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Golden Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the Words
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence

Contract Act

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens System

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act
• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

Criminal

• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable offences
• Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Commission of Cognizable Offence, On the Face of it, Merit Police Investigation
• ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal Cases

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?

Will

• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head

Religious issues

• Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court to Decide the Contours of Constitutional Morality
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
  • Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption Act
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR 847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party to a Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical Appreciation
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
  • Striking Down Legislation Relating to a Trust as Violative of Article 14 and 300A
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions