LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second suit is maintainable when it arises from the same cause of action as a previously filed suit, but involves a different sale deed.

CASE TYPE: Civil

Case Name: Pramod Kumar & Anr. vs. Zalak Singh & Ors.

Judgment Date: 10 May 2019

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 451

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a person file multiple suits for different parts of the same transaction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning ancestral property sales. The Court examined whether a second suit, challenging a separate sale deed, was permissible when the core issue of ancestral property rights was already litigated in a previous suit. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over ancestral property. Tikaram, the father of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of respondent 4, owned 8.22 acres of land. He sold 3.20 acres to the appellants on January 21, 1959, and the remaining 4.82 acres on February 11, 1959, also to the appellants. Tikaram passed away on July 15, 1959. The respondents, claiming the land was ancestral property, filed two separate suits challenging these sales.

The first suit, filed in 1963, contested the sale deed of January 21, 1959, alleging that Tikaram sold the land for immoral purposes and against the family’s interests. The trial court dismissed this suit, ruling that Tikaram was the rightful owner due to a 1957 partition. The respondents then filed an appeal.

Subsequently, the respondents filed a second suit in 1971, challenging the sale deed of February 11, 1959. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed this second suit, citing Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and constructive res judicata, arguing that the second sale should have been part of the first suit. The High Court, however, reversed these decisions, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date Event
January 21, 1959 Tikaram sells 3.20 acres of land to the appellants.
February 11, 1959 Tikaram sells the remaining 4.82 acres of land to the appellants.
July 15, 1959 Tikaram passes away.
1963 Respondents file the first suit (Civil Suit No. 131 of 1963) challenging the sale deed of January 21, 1959.
January 31, 1969 Trial Court dismisses the first suit.
February 10, 1971 Respondents file an appeal against the dismissal of the first suit (Civil Appeal NO. 22 of 1969).
1971 Respondents file the second suit (Civil Suit No. 34 of 1971) challenging the sale deed of February 11, 1959.
August 31, 2012 High Court sets aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in the second suit.
May 10, 2019 Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the first suit, Civil Suit No. 131 of 1963, holding that Tikaram was the owner of the property due to a 1957 partition and had the right to sell it. The respondents appealed this decision. Subsequently, the respondents filed a second suit, Civil Suit No. 34 of 1971, challenging the second sale deed. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed this second suit, citing Order II Rule 2 of the CPC and constructive res judicata.

The High Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, stating that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC would not apply because the two sales constituted separate causes of action. The High Court also found that constructive res judicata did not apply. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

  • Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This rule prevents a plaintiff from splitting claims and requires them to include the whole claim in respect of a cause of action in one suit. It states:

    “2. Suit to include the whole claim
    (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.
    (2) Relinquishment of part of claim- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
    (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs – A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.”
  • Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This article specifies the limitation period for a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law to set aside his father’s alienation of ancestral property as twelve years from the date when the alienee takes possession of the property.
  • Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC: This rule outlines the particulars to be included in a plaint, including the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose.
  • Order II Rule 3 of the CPC: This rule allows a plaintiff to unite several causes of action against the same defendant in one suit. It states:

    “3. Joinder of causes of action
    (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
    (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The appellants argued that the High Court erred in concluding that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC was not a bar. They contended that the cause of action in the second suit was identical to that in the first suit.
  • They asserted that the second alienation was known at the time of the first suit and should have been included in that suit. The respondents should not have split the cause of action into separate suits.
  • The appellants relied on the judgments in Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Limited (2014) 6 SCC 424 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 to support their claim that Order II Rule 2 was applicable.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act in compensation cases: Ramsingbhai vs. State of Gujarat (24 April 2018)

Respondents’ Arguments:

  • The respondents argued that the cause of action in both suits was different, referring to Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC.
  • They contended that under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for the second sale deed was different from the first, as it commenced from the date of possession by the alienee.
  • The respondents relied on the judgment in Alka Gupta v. Narender Gupta (2010) 10 SCC 141, to support their argument that the cause of action was different in both the suits.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellants: Order II Rule 2 of CPC is a bar
  • Cause of action in both suits is identical.
  • Second alienation was known at the time of the first suit.
  • Respondents should not have split the cause of action.
Respondents: Order II Rule 2 of CPC is not a bar
  • Cause of action in both suits is different.
  • Limitation period for the second sale deed is different under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents’ argument that the different limitation periods under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, create separate causes of action was a novel attempt to circumvent the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

  1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC would not apply in the facts of this case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC applies? Yes, the bar under Order II Rule 2 applies. The Court held that both suits arose from the same cause of action, i.e., the challenge to the ancestral property sales. The second sale deed should have been included in the first suit.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How Considered Legal Point
Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mehbub Ali Mian AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 78 Privy Council Relied upon Explained the meaning of “cause of action” and the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Limited (2014) 6 SCC 424 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Explained that if the cause of action pleaded in both suits is identical, the subsequent suit is barred by Order II Rule 2.
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Supported the application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Alka Gupta v. Narender Gupta (2010) 10 SCC 141 Supreme Court of India Distinguished The Court distinguished this case, noting that the causes of action in that case were different.
Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd. (2013) 1 SCC 625 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Explained the distinction between Order II Rule 2(1) and Order II Rule 2(3) of the CPC.
Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal AIR 1964 SC 1810 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Explained the principles of res judicata.
Union of India v. H.K. Dhruv (2005) 10 SCC 218 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Stated that the cause of action on which the subsequent claim is founded should have arisen when the first claim was enforced.
S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore (2007) 11 SCC 75 Supreme Court of India Relied upon Held that the cause of action in the second suit was different from the first suit.
Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Statute Relied upon The Court interpreted and applied this rule to determine the maintainability of the second suit.
Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Statute Discussed The Court discussed that a different limitation period does not create a different cause of action.
Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC Statute Discussed The Court discussed that the cause of action is the factual and legal basis for the suit.
Order II Rule 3 of the CPC Statute Discussed The Court discussed the joinder of causes of action.
See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Financial Creditor Status Under IBC: NOIDA Lease Dues Not a Financial Debt (May 17, 2022)

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellants’ submission that Order II Rule 2 of CPC is a bar: Accepted. The Court agreed that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
Respondents’ submission that the cause of action was different due to different limitation periods under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Rejected. The Court held that a different limitation period does not create a different cause of action.
Respondents’ submission that the cause of action was different due to Order VII Rule 1 of CPC: Rejected. The Court clarified that the cause of action is the factual and legal basis for the suit and not merely the date when it arose.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • The Court relied on Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mehbub Ali Mian [AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 78]* to define the term “cause of action” as the factual and legal basis on which the plaintiff seeks relief.
  • The Court followed Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Limited [ (2014) 6 SCC 424]* to emphasize that if the cause of action in both suits is identical, the second suit is barred.
  • The Court also relied on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem [ (1989) 2 SCC 163]* to support the application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
  • The Court distinguished Alka Gupta v. Narender Gupta [ (2010) 10 SCC 141]*, noting that the causes of action in that case were different from the present case.
  • The Court relied on Virgo Industries (Eng.) (P) Ltd. v. Venturetech Solutions (P) Ltd. [ (2013) 1 SCC 625]* to explain the distinction between Order II Rule 2(1) and Order II Rule 2(3) of the CPC.
  • The Court relied on Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal [AIR 1964 SC 1810]* to explain the principles of res judicata.
  • The Court relied on Union of India v. H.K. Dhruv [ (2005) 10 SCC 218]* to state that the cause of action on which the subsequent claim is founded should have arisen when the first claim was enforced.
  • The Court relied on S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore [ (2007) 11 SCC 75]* to highlight how cause of action in the second suit was different from the first suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The Court emphasized that the core issue in both suits was the challenge to the sale of ancestral property by Tikaram. The Court found that the second sale deed should have been included in the first suit since the respondents were aware of it at the time of filing the first suit. The Court was also guided by the need to prevent multiplicity of suits and ensure that all claims arising from the same cause of action are addressed in a single legal proceeding.

The Court also considered that the factual matrix and the legal basis for both suits were essentially the same. The Court was not persuaded by the argument that the different limitation periods under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, created separate causes of action. The Court clarified that the cause of action is the factual and legal basis for the suit and not merely the date when it arose.

Sentiment Percentage Ranking
Principle against vexing a person twice for the same cause of action 30% 1
Core issue of challenging ancestral property sales 25% 2
Need to prevent multiplicity of suits 20% 3
Factual and legal basis for both suits being the same 15% 4
Rejection of argument based on different limitation periods 10% 5
Ratio Percentage
Fact 40%
Law 60%

Fact:Law Ratio: The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision was 40:60. This indicates that while the factual aspects of the case were important, the legal principles and their interpretation played a more significant role in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the second suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC?
↓
Question: Do both suits arise from the same cause of action?
↓
Analysis: Both suits challenge the sale of ancestral property by Tikaram.
↓
Finding: The cause of action is the same.
↓
Conclusion: The second suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The Court reasoned that the respondents should have included the challenge to the second sale deed in the first suit as both sales arose from the same cause of action. The Court emphasized the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies SEBI registration for stock brokers operating across multiple exchanges: SEBI vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association (2022)

The Court rejected the argument that the different limitation periods under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963, created separate causes of action. The Court clarified that the cause of action is the factual and legal basis for the suit and not merely the date when it arose. The Court also noted that the respondents were aware of the second sale deed at the time of filing the first suit and should have included it in that suit.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

  • “The principle underlying Order II Rule 2 is that no man can be vexed twice over the same cause of action. All claims and reliefs, which arise from a cause of action, must be comprehended in one single suit.”
  • “Cause of action, as explained by the Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan case (supra), means the Media through which the plaintiff seeks to persuade the Court to grant him relief. It could, therefore, be said to be the factual and legal basis or premise upon which the Court is invited by the plaintiff to decide the case in his favour.”
  • “That on the same cause of action, the plaintiffs having omitted to sue in respect of the sale deed in question, we would think that bar under Order II Rule 2 would apply.”

Key Takeaways

  • A plaintiff must include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit.
  • Splitting claims into multiple suits based on different aspects of the same transaction is not allowed under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
  • A different limitation period does not create a separate cause of action.
  • The cause of action is the factual and legal basis for the suit, not merely the date when it arose.
  • The principle of repose aims to prevent multiplicity of suits and ensure that all claims are addressed in a single proceeding.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a second suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC if it arises from the same cause of action as a previously filed suit, even if it involves a different transaction or a different limitation period. This judgment reinforces the principle that all claims arising from the same cause of action must be included in a single suit to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh clarifies the application of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The Court held that if a plaintiff fails to include all claims arising from the same cause of action in the first suit, a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action is barred. This decision emphasizes the importance of combining all related claims in one suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure judicial efficiency. The Court also clarified that different limitation periods do not create separate causes of action.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

  • Child Category: Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  • Child Category: Cause of Action
  • Child Category: Res Judicata

Parent Category: Limitation Act, 1963

  • Child Category: Article 109, Limitation Act, 1963

Parent Category: Civil Law

  • Child Category: Property Law

FAQ

Q: What is Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)?

A: Order II Rule 2 of the CPC is a legal provision that requires a plaintiff to include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit. It prevents a plaintiff from splitting claims and filing multiple suits for the same issue.

Q: What is a “cause of action” in legal terms?

A: A “cause of action” refers to the factual and legal basis upon which a plaintiff seeks relief from the court. It includes all the essential facts that the plaintiff needs to prove to support their claim.

Q: Can I file a second suit if I forgot to include a claim in the first suit?

A: Generally, no. If a claim arises from the same cause of action as a previous suit, it should have been included in that suit. If you omitted it, you are usually barred from filing a second suit for that claim, as per Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

Q: What if the limitation period for my second claim is different from the first?

A: A different limitation period does not create a separate cause of action. If both claims arise from the same factual and legal basis, they should be included in one suit, even if their limitation periods differ.

Q: What does this judgment mean for property disputes?

A: This judgment means that if you have a dispute over a property, you must include all related claims in one suit. You cannot file separate suits for different aspects of the same dispute. For example, if you are challenging multiple sales of the same property, you must include all those challenges in one suit.

Q: What happens if I fail to include all claims in one suit?

A: If you fail to include all claims arising from the same cause of action in one suit, you may be barred from filing a second suit for the omitted claims. This is because Order II Rule 2 of the CPC prevents splitting of claims and ensures that all related issues are addressed in a single proceeding.

Source: Pramod Kumar vs. Zalak Singh