Makardhawaj Ram V Jagdish Rai 2026 INC 636 Constructive Res Judicata

Facts-

The parties in dispute are related to one Gokul Rai.The dispute involved proprties of his Grandson i.e Mahabir Rai who transferred his portion of property in favour of his mother Raj Mohani and his son Makardwaj.On 23rd April 1962, Mahabir Rai, his wife Gulmati, and mother Raj Mohani @ Rupjhari, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Rambhajan, who is Mahabir Rai’s cousin that is the son of Baldeo’s sister-Dhanmati. In 1969 on two separate occasions i.e., 27th January 1969 and 4th February 1969, Rambhajan, using the said GPA sold 21.43 acres land to one Prem Prakash. and 33.76 acres to one Chandra Sao. The GPA was cancelled by the grantors.The son filed a cancellation of sale deed qua transfer which was dismissed by civil judge class 2. The second transfer was challenged by Gulmati, as legal guardian of minor children which too was dismissed. Thereafter Rambhajan applied for Mutation of his name in revenue records which was dismissed but allowed on appeal.
This led appellant to file present suit for declaration of title and possession against Rambhajan
A lawsuit for title and possession was partially decreed in favor of the plaintiff for 43.69 acres out of 95.8. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed.The High Court then set aside the lower courts’ judgments, dismissing the suit due to constructive res judicata.

Ratio & Decision:

Referring to Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of Indias, K.V. Viswanathan J., considered the law on constructive res judicata while dealing with an employment dispute.The following aspect of constructive res judicata can be highlighted:
1. Constructive res judicata mandates that all grounds that might and
ought to have been employed in the proceedings, should be employed to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
2. It is a deeming fiction of law, but its application is not uniform and
instead is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a particular case
with ‘due regard to ambit of the earlier proceedings’ and ‘the nexus
which the matter bears to the nature of the controversy’.
3. This principle is founded on public policy. It is a generally acceptable rule that one person should not be “vexed twice over” for the
same kind of litigation. As such, it also applies to the proceedings under Article 226/32 of the Constitution of India.
4. In respect of ‘ought’ referred above, the said word implies the threshold to be above mere possibility.
5 The parties while conducting litigation are expected to apply ‘reasonable diligence’, ‘legitimate purview’. It is from this lens that it
shall be adjudicated whether all issues that were properly arising to the litigation; which ought to have been raised; were raised or not?
6. The principle applies with equal force in cases where the ground that might and ought to have been raised was not done, on account of
negligence, inadvertence or accident. In other words, might and ought to apply cumulatively with full force, without exception. The party
therefore commits these errors at their own peril
• The appellant-plaintiff, owner of land via a 1960 deed, challenged two transactions where Rambhajan allegedly sold parts of his property.
• The High Court overlooked the fact that the plaintiff’s ownership of the larger parcel was undisputed, only becoming an issue when Rambhajan sought to mutate his name for the entire property.
• The court’s decision would unjustly deprive the plaintiff of his property.
• In family disputes, judges should consider surrounding facts, not just strict law, to avoid harsh outcomes.The impugned judgment is therefore set aside.