Supreme Court dismisses suit citing res judicata and consent decree principles.

The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The compromise agreement was deemed binding, settling accounts up to March 31, 1946. The court emphasized that a consent decree is as binding as an adversarial decree. The applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act was not considered due to the suit being already barred on other grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Res judicata
2. Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
3. Applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act

Detailed Analysis

Res Judicata
The primary issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the principle of res judicata. The court held that the compromise agreement, which was not found to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or mistake, had the binding force of res judicata. The court emphasized that "a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum." The plaintiff's subsequent suit was found to be barred because the compromise had conclusively settled the accounts up to March 31, 1946, and precluded any further claims.

Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code
The court also examined whether the plaintiff's claim was barred under Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff had confined his claim to accounts up to March 31, 1946, in the initial suit, thereby implicitly relinquishing his claim for the subsequent period. The court stated, "if a person omits, except with the leave of the Court, to sue for all reliefs to which he is entitled, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted." The court concluded that the cause of action in both suits was the same-the desire to separate from his brothers and divide the joint family property. Therefore, the subsequent suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2(3).

Applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act
The court briefly addressed the applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, which deals with the liability of co-owners to account for profits made from joint property. The trial court had applied this principle, treating the defendants as analogous to partners carrying on a partnership after dissolution. However, the Supreme Court found that this issue did not arise because the suit was already barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3). Therefore, the court did not delve deeper into the applicability of Section 90.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by both res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized that the compromise agreement had conclusively settled the accounts up to March 31, 1946, and precluded any further claims. The applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act was deemed irrelevant given the other findings.

---