Specific pleading and proof are essential for res judicata and adverse possession; prior decree covered only part of the property.

A plea of res judicata must be specifically pleaded, supported by the earlier record, and proved at trial; it cannot ordinarily be raised for the first time in appeal. Because the prior litigation concerned only a limited portion of the property and no proper foundation was laid, the present suit was not barred. A plea of adverse possession likewise requires clear pleading and proof of open, continuous, hostile possession from the point it became adverse; the defendant's inconsistent stand and lack of evidence defeated that defence. The plaintiff was entitled to declaration, recovery of possession of the remaining property, and enquiry into mesne profits, excluding the 240 square feet already covered by the earlier decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was barred by res judicata when that plea had not been properly pleaded or proved and the earlier suit related only to a part of the property; (ii) whether the defendant had established title by adverse possession; (iii) what relief should follow in respect of title, possession, and mesne profits.

Issue (i): whether the suit was barred by res judicata when that plea had not been properly pleaded or proved and the earlier suit related only to a part of the property.

Analysis: The plea of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact and must be specifically raised in the pleadings, supported by the earlier pleadings, issues, and judgment, and tried on evidence. A party cannot ordinarily raise such a plea for the first time in appeal. On the facts, the plea was not taken in the trial court, was not established by the necessary materials, and the earlier litigation concerned only a limited portion of the property, which could not automatically bar the entire present suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by res judicata and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the defendant had established title by adverse possession.

Analysis: A plea of adverse possession must be specific, continuous, open, hostile, and proved from the point when possession became adverse. The defendant's stand was inconsistent, since he had earlier asserted a claim as co-owner and had not shown when hostile possession began. The plea was vague and unsupported by proof.

Conclusion: Adverse possession was not proved and the defence failed.

Issue (iii): what relief should follow in respect of title, possession, and mesne profits.

Analysis: The plaintiff was entitled to succeed for the entire property except the 240 square feet area already covered by the earlier decree, which had to be worked out in execution of that decree. The plaintiff was also entitled to declaration of title, recovery of vacant possession of the remaining property, and an enquiry into mesne profits for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was granted relief in part, with the earlier decree excluded from the present relief.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment was set aside, the decrees of the courts below were restored in substance, and the suit was decreed for the remaining property with consequential possession and mesne profits relief, subject to exclusion of the already decreed 240 square feet area.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of res judicata or adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and proved by proper evidence, and a prior decree concerning only a distinct part of the property does not automatically bar a later suit for the remaining property.

---