Summary of Judgment Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

Related Laws:

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VII Rule 11 (Rejection of Plaint)

2. Doctrine of Res Judicata (Section 11, CPC)

3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 (Lis Pendens)

Citation: 2025 INSC 825
Case Title: Pandurangan vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: 14th July 2025

Background

1. Dispute:
   Appellant (Pandurangan) purchased property in 1998 from Hussain Babu, who bought it from Jayam Ammal in 1991.
   Respondent No. 1 (Jayarama Chettiar) obtained an ex parte decree in 1997 (O.S. No. 298/1996) for partition, claiming co-ownership.
   Appellant filed O.S. No. 60/2009 for declaration of title and injunction, alleging:
   The ex parte decree was collusive and fraudulent.
   The earlier suit was filed in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.

2. Lower Courts’ Decisions:
   Trial Court (2014): Allowed Respondent’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the plaint on grounds of res judicata.
   High Court (2019): Dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Trial Court’s order.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be invoked to reject a plaint based on res judicata without examining the merits of fraud allegations.

2. Whether the appellant, being a non-party to the earlier suit, can be barred by res judicata.

Supreme Court’s Decision

1. Order VII Rule 11 CPC Misapplied:
   Legal Principle: Res judicata requires examination of pleadings, issues, and evidence from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 (reiterating Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Kamat, 2021).
   Fraud Allegations: Appellant’s claim of collusive decree and jurisdictional fraud necessitates a full trial, not summary rejection.

2. Res Judicata Not Applicable at This Stage:
   Appellant was not a party to the earlier suit and claims through Hussain Babu (defendant in the prior suit).
   Fraud vitiates all proceedings: If proved, the ex parte decree would not bind the appellant (V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Sarawanabava, 2004).

3. Restoration of Suit:
   Set aside High Court and Trial Court orders.
   Directed expeditious disposal of O.S. No. 60/2009 (pending since 2009).

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding:
  Res judicata cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without a full trial.
  Fraud allegations must be examined on merits.

• Clarification: No opinion expressed on the ultimate validity of the ex parte decree; all defenses left open for trial.

Final Direction:

• Trial Court to decide the suit afresh, considering evidence on fraud and jurisdictional issues.

Key Takeaways:

• Order VII Rule 11 CPC is limited to plaint averments; defenses like res judicata require deeper scrutiny.

• Fraud allegations against a prior decree warrant a full trial, not summary rejection.