List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors. (2026), dismissed an appeal in a property dispute and held that while dismissal of a suit for default does not attract res judicata under Section 11 CPC, a litigant who consciously abandons earlier proceedings may be denied relief in execution on broader equitable principles amounting to abuse of the process of court.

What was the Background of Sharada Sanghi & Ors. v. Asha Agarwal & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The appellants were the original plaintiffs and decree-holders in a suit for specific performance filed in 1988.  
• They had entered into an agreement for sale dated December 15, 1986, with the owner's son in respect of a portion of immovable property in Hyderabad and sought enforcement of that agreement when the seller allegedly failed to perform his obligations. 
• The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance in October 1998, directing execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession. The decree attained finality, and the plaintiffs-initiated execution proceedings. 
• At the execution stage, certain third parties — not parties to the original suit — resisted delivery of possession by filing objections claiming independent title to portions of the same property on the basis of sale deeds executed in July 1990. 
• They asserted that their title derived from an alleged oral gift made by the original owner and contended that the decree obtained by the plaintiffs was not binding on them. 
• Significantly, the appellants had earlier filed separate suits seeking cancellation of those very sale deeds.  
• However, both suits were dismissed for default due to non-appearance, and even their applications for restoration were dismissed. Consequently, the rival title claims remained unadjudicated on merits. 
• The executing court rejected the third parties' objections, but the appellate court set aside that order, holding that the decree-holders must institute a separate suit to establish their rights against the objectors.  
• The High Court affirmed this view. Aggrieved, the decree-holders approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Res Judicata: The Court held that dismissal of a suit for default — owing to a plaintiff's non-appearance — does not operate as res judicata under Section 11 CPC, since there is no adjudication on merits. A fresh suit on the same cause of action is therefore not barred on this ground alone. 
• On Equitable Bar: The Court clarified that this principle will not apply where the plaintiff deliberately fails to pursue available remedies such as restoration or refiling, and repeatedly allows proceedings to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In such cases, the broader principle of nemo debet bis vexari — that no person ought to be vexed twice for the same cause — is attracted, and relief may be denied on equitable grounds. 
• On Abuse of Process: The Court criticised the appellants' conduct as amounting to an abuse of the process of court. Having allowed their earlier challenge to the sale deeds to attain finality, they could not seek to reopen the same issue in execution. Repeated non-prosecution was held to reflect a deliberate intention to avoid direct proceedings and secure orders in proceedings where the contesting parties were absent. 
• On Order XXI Rule 101 CPC: While disagreeing with the appellate court's direction that a separate suit was required, the Court noted that the executing court is empowered under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC to adjudicate all questions relating to right, title, or interest. However, this did not assist the appellants given their prior conduct in abandoning the earlier suits.

What is Res Judicata? 

About: 

• Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”. 
• Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) embodies the doctrine of Res Judicata or the rule of conclusiveness of a judgment. 
• It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by a competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in a subsequent litigation. 
• It serves to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect parties from being vexed twice for the same cause. 

Essential Elements: 

• Matter in issue must be same: To apply the principle of Res Judicata, the matter in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially same in the former suit. 
• Same Parties: The former suit must have been between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.  
• Same Title: The parties must be litigating under the same title in both the former and subsequent suits.  
• Competent Jurisdiction: The court that decided the former suit must have had jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been raised. 
• Heard and Finally Decided: The matter in issue must have been heard and finally decided by the former court.  

Extent and Applicability: 

• The doctrine of res judicata applies to civil suits, execution proceedings, taxation matters, industrial adjudication, administrative orders, interim orders, etc. 
• The doctrine of res judicata codified in Section 11 of CPC is not exhaustive. 

Former Suit: Explanation I: 

• Explanation I to Section 11 of CPC provides that the expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether it was instituted prior thereto. 
• It is not the date on which the suit is filed that matters but the date on which the suit is decided. 
• Even if a suit was filed later, it will be a former suit within the meaning of explanation I if it has been decided earlier.   

Constructive Res Judicata: Explanation IV: 

• The rule of constructive Res Judicata engrafted in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC. 
• It is aimed at preventing not only the relitigating of issues that were decided in a previous suit but also those issues that could have been raised and decided but were not.  
• It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based. 

Representative Suit: Explanation VI: 

• Explanation VI to Section 11 of the CPC states that where bona fide litigation is initiated in respect of a common private or a public right, the decision of such litigation would operate as res judicata on all persons having an interest in that right. 
• The following conditions must be satisfied before a decision may operate as res judicata under explanation VI: 
  • There must be a right claimed by one or more persons in common for themselves and others not expressly named in the suit. 
  • The litigation must have been conducted bonafide and on behalf of all parties interested. 
  • If the suit is under Order I Rule 8 of CPC, all conditions laid down therein must have been strictly complied with.  

Exceptions to Res Judicata: 

• Writ of Habeas Corpus: The principle of Res Judicata does not apply to the writ of Habeas Corpus. 
• Fraud or Collusion: If the original judgment was obtained through fraud or collusion, it may not be binding in subsequent litigation. 
• Substantial changes in evidence: If some new evidence emerges that could not have been discovered with due diligence during the prior suit, then the Court may allow the issue to be re-litigated. 
• Incompetent Jurisdiction of Court: If the court that rendered the original judgment lacked proper jurisdiction, the decision may not have a binding effect. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman, in X v. Y (2026), dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's refusal to reject her husband's divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  

• The Court held that membership of a Scheduled Tribe does not automatically exclude the application of the Hindu Marriage Act unless a distinct tribal custom governing marriage and its dissolution is specifically and clearly pleaded.

What was the Background of X v. Y (2026) Case? 

• The husband filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court.  
• The wife filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the petition at the threshold on the ground that both parties belonged to the Meena community, a Scheduled Tribe, and that the Hindu Marriage Act was therefore not applicable to them by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act. 
• The Family Court rejected the wife's application, finding it insufficiently pleaded. Aggrieved, the wife preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.  
• Notably, the wife had herself earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and had admitted in her pleadings that the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Pleading of Custom: The Division Bench held that the wife's application was ambiguous and vague. While she claimed the marriage was solemnized as per the customs of the Meena community, she failed to specify what those customs were, how they differed from the Hindu rites and ceremonies prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or whether the ceremonies followed were in any manner distinct from those performed by Hindus generally. A bare assertion of tribal identity, without more, cannot satisfy the threshold of pleading under Section 2(2) of the Act. 
• On Conduct of the Wife: The Court noted that the wife had herself admitted the marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and had invoked the Hindu Marriage Act by filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 thereof. This conduct was treated as a significant acknowledgment of the Act's applicability and was found inconsistent with her subsequent attempt to exclude the Act's jurisdiction for the purposes of the husband's divorce petition. 
• On Section 2(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act: The Court reiterated that Section 2(2) carves out an exception only where a notification has been issued by the State Government or where a specific and proven custom excludes the Act's applicability. The mere status of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, without establishing such a custom in the pleadings, does not attract the exception and cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain a petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act.

What is Section 2 of HMA? 

Section 2 — Application of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 

Section 2(1) — Who the Act Applies To: 

The Act applies to three broad categories of persons: 

• Hindus by religion in any form or development, expressly including Virashaivas, Lingayats, and followers of the Brahmo, Prarthana, or Arya Samaj movements. 
• Buddhists, Jainas, and Sikhs by religion. 
• Any other person domiciled in the applicable territories who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jew — unless it is proved that such a person would not have been governed by Hindu law or custom even before the Act was passed. 

Explanation — Who Qualifies as Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, or Sikh: 

• A child (legitimate or illegitimate) both of whose parents belong to any of these religions. 
• A child (legitimate or illegitimate) one of whose parents belongs to any of these religions, provided the child is raised as a member of that parent's community or family. 
• Any person who converts or reconverts to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina, or Sikh religion.

Section 2(2) — Exception for Scheduled Tribes: 

• Notwithstanding the broad applicability under Section 2(1), the Act does not automatically apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe as defined under Article 366(25) of the Constitution.  
• This exclusion holds unless the Central Government issues a specific notification in the Official Gazette directing otherwise.