### Counter-claim Against Co-defendants Is Maintainable in Partition Suits Since Parties Hold Interchangeable Status

In brief

The question

Whether in a suit for partition, a defendant can set up a counter-claim against a co-defendant?

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that (i) in partition suits, a counter-claim by a defendant against a co-defendant is maintainable as the parties' roles are interchangeable; and (ii) the petitioners were estopped from re-challenging the counter-claim due to the prior binding order of 26.05.2015.

It also directed

The trial court's order dated 28.03.2026 was upheld.

01Facts

The plaintiffs (Respondents 1–7) filed a civil suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction regarding a residential property in Chomu, Jaipur, based on a family settlement dated 06.02.1994.

¶ 8.3

Defendants No. 1, 3, and 4 filed a written statement admitting the joint family nature of the property and submitted a counter-claim for partition of their respective shares based on the same settlement.

¶ 8.5

Petitioners (Defendants No. 2 and 5–11) contested the suit, alleging the settlement document was forged.

¶ 8.4

In 2014, the Petitioners moved an application to strike out the counter-claim, which was dismissed on 26.05.2015.

¶ 19

After the plaintiffs' evidence concluded, the Petitioners filed a second application (Annx. 11) seeking the same relief—striking out the counter-claim and related evidence—arguing a defendant cannot file a counter-claim against a co-defendant.

¶ 1

The trial court dismissed this second application on 28.03.2026, leading to this writ petition.

¶ 1, 5

02Issues

i.Whether in a suit for partition, a defendant can set up a counter-claim against a co-defendant?

¶ 7, 9

ii.Whether the order dated 26.05.2015 operates as res judicata against the petitioners, preventing them from re-agitating the same issue at a subsequent stage of the same suit?

¶ 7, 21

03Law Applied

The Court applied Order VIII Rule 6-A of the CPC, which allows a defendant to set up a counter-claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

¶ 9-10

The Court relied on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 734], which generally prohibits counter-claims directed solely against co-defendants, but distinguished it using the principle that in partition suits,ทุก parties are deemed "suing persons" and their status is interchangeable, as held in A. Krishna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi G. [2023] and A. Mohamed Sulaiman v. A. Ameena Beevi.

¶ 14-15

Regarding the second issue, the Court applied the doctrine of "interlocutory res judicata" based on Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [AIR 1960 SC 941] and B.S. Lalitha v. Bhuvanesh [2026 SCC Online SC 860], which mandates that a decision at one stage of litigation is binding on the parties in subsequent stages of the same proceeding.

¶ 21-22

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 8

04Reasoning

Regarding the first issue, the Court reasoned that while a counter-claim is typically directed against the plaintiff, the unique nature of partition suits—where defendants effectively seek the same relief as plaintiffs—allows for such claims against co-defendants.

¶ 14-18

It noted that the petitioners’ defense against both the main claim and the counter-claim was identical (denial of the settlement document), and thus resolving them together aligns with the legislative intent to prevent multiple trials.

¶ 16

Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the petitioners had already challenged the maintainability of the counter-claim in 2014 and lost via an order dated 26.05.2015.

¶ 19-20

Since that order reached finality and was decided on merits, the petitioners were legally barred from filing a second application for the same relief at the evidence stage under the principle of interlocutory res judicata.

¶ 23