CHANNAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS. v. PARVATEWWA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
Application of Order II Rule 2 and Constructive Res Judicata to Successive Property Suits and the Scope of Challenging Interlocutory Orders under Section 105 CPC.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 343
Decision Date: 09-04-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 11 - Res Judicata; Order II Rule 2 - Suit to Include the Whole Claim; Section 100 - Second Appeal Jurisdiction; Section 105 - Other Orders (Interlocutory Challenges)
- Facts: The plaintiff, Parvatewwa, filed a suit in 2002 (Suit-I) seeking to declare an adoption deed from 1961 null and void and for a perpetual injunction, after discovering that the defendant, Channappa, had recorded his name as owner of her properties. Suit-I was dismissed in 2006. While an appeal against Suit-I was pending, the plaintiff filed a second suit in 2007 (Suit-II) for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the same properties, alleging she had been illegally dispossessed. The defendant contended that Suit-II was barred by limitation, res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that Suit-II was barred as the plaintiff ought to have claimed title and possession in the first suit itself. However, the High Court reversed these findings in a second appeal, decreeing Suit-II in favor of the plaintiff.
- Procedural Posture: The matter reached the Supreme Court via a Civil Appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition challenging the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, which had set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Issue: 1. Whether Suit-II was barred by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata (Section 11, CPC), or Order II Rule 2, CPC. 2. Whether an interlocutory order rejecting a maintainability plea can be challenged in an appeal against the final decree under Section 105, CPC. 3. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact.
- Holding: 1. Yes, Suit-II was barred by Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata. 2. Yes, Section 105(1) allows a party to challenge non-appealable interlocutory orders in an appeal against the final decree. 3. Yes, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the cause of action in both suits was essentially the same, rooted in the dispute over property ownership and the defendant's assertion of rights. Since the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's claim to ownership during Suit-I, she was "entitled to more than one relief" and should have sought a declaration of title and possession then. Failure to do so without court leave attracts the bar under Order II Rule 2. Furthermore, Section 105(1) of the CPC specifically permits challenging interlocutory errors in the final appeal to prevent "endless expense and delay" of multiple appeals. Finally, the High Court erred by reassessing facts without a "substantial question of law" or a finding of perversity, effectively conducting a "third trial on facts" which is impermissible under Section 100.
🔒 For Members Only