Legal Analysis: Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Through Lrs. and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 636

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal No. 2950 of 2011 against the judgment and order dated 18th September 2009 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Second Appeal No. 617 of 1996.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over 95.80 acres of land, which he claimed by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour in 1960. Earlier, a Power of Attorney holder had sold portions of the land (21.43 acres and 33.76 acres) to third parties. The plaintiff, through his guardians as a minor, had filed suits challenging those sale deeds, which were dismissed. When the Power of Attorney holder later sought mutation in his name, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The High Court dismissed the suit as barred by constructive res judicata under Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC, holding that the plaintiff could and ought to have claimed his title from the 1960 deed in the earlier suits. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that: (i) the earlier suits were specifically directed against the sale deeds and sought cancellation thereof; (ii) the plaintiff’s title from the 1960 deed was not in dispute in those proceedings; (iii) there was no occasion to assert the larger title when the specific sales were being challenged; (iv) applying constructive res judicata to bar the present suit would lead to an unduly harsh and unjust consequence, depriving the plaintiff of property that had been in his name since childhood; (v) the principle of res judicata must be applied with due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case, not mechanically.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Through Lrs. and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 636

Civil Appeal No.: 2950 of 2011

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 18th September 2009 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Second Appeal No. 617 of 1996, dismissing the suit as barred by constructive res judicata.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 11 (res judicata), Explanation IV (constructive res judicata – any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a former suit shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue).

• General principles of res judicata – founded on public policy: finality of litigation and preventing vexatious multiplicity of proceedings.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Kameswar Pershad v. Rajkumari Ruttun Koer (Privy Council) – The word “ought” depends on the particular facts

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.