Second suit barred due to identical cause of action under Order II Rule 2

The Supreme Court held that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the cause of action in both suits was identical. The Respondents should have included the challenge to the second sale deed in the first suit. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court did not address the issue of constructive res judicata.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Constructive res judicata.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The primary issue was whether the second suit filed by the Respondents was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. The High Court had held that Order II Rule 2 was not a bar, reasoning that the two alienations by Tikaram gave rise to two separate causes of action. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this conclusion.

The Court emphasized that the cause of action, in both suits, must be identical for Order II Rule 2 to apply. The Court referred to the pleadings in both suits, noting that the Respondents' claims were based on the same factual matrix: the ancestral nature of the property, Tikaram's wasteful habits, and the lack of necessity for the sales. The first suit challenged the sale deed dated 21.01.1959, while the second suit challenged the sale deed dated 11.02.1959. Both sales were part of a single transaction involving the same property and the same parties.

The Court cited precedents, including the case of Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mehbub Ali Mian, to explain that the cause of action includes every fact necessary to be proved to support the Plaintiff's right to judgment. Since the cause of action in both suits was identical, the Respondents were required to include the challenge to the second sale deed in the first suit. The omission to do so barred the second suit under Order II Rule 2.

2. Constructive Res Judicata:
The second issue was whether the principle of constructive res judicata applied. The High Court had found that constructive res judicata did not apply, as the two alienations gave rise to separate causes of action. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to pronounce on this issue, given its conclusion on the applicability of Order II Rule 2.

The principle of constructive res judicata, as explained by the Court, prevents a party from raising issues in a subsequent suit that could have been raised in an earlier suit. The Court referred to the case of Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, which distinguished between causes of action and grounds of attack or defense that could have been raised but were not.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2, as the cause of action in both suits was identical. The Respondents should have included the challenge to the second sale deed in the first suit. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of constructive res judicata.

---