Declaratory decrees regarding family pension eligibility do not bind the State unless the State is impleaded as a party.

The appellant, Km. Rajkumari Bhanishana Devi, filed a matrimonial appeal before the High Court of Manipur

The appellant had originally initiated litigation to claim a family pension following the death of her father

However, the State and relevant governmental authorities—who are necessary parties for the granting of such pension—were not impleaded as parties in the original suit

During the admission hearing on 06.05.2026, the appellant’s counsel sought leave to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to file a fresh suit in the jurisdictional Family Court, citing a similar procedural necessity identified in a previous High Court order dated 19.02.2026 in MAT. APP. No. 6 of 2026

1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the current appeal with the liberty to file a fresh suit arraying necessary governmental parties

2. Whether a fresh suit seeking a declaratory decree regarding family pension would be barred by the principle of res judicata if the State was not a party to the previous proceedings

Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which stipulates that a declaration made under Chapter VI is binding only upon the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) regarding res judicata, noting that it does not apply where the subsequent suit is not between the same parties

Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to dispose of the statutory appeal

The Court observed that because the State/governmental authorities were not parties to the initial suit, any declaratory decree obtained would not be binding upon them under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, rendering the suit ineffective for the purpose of claiming a family pension

Counsel for the appellant noted that this case was "directly and squarely covered" by the precedent in MAT. APP. No. 6 of 2026, where a similar withdrawal was permitted

The Court reasoned that permitting a fresh suit is legally sound because a new filing involving the State would not be hit by res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC, as the parties would be different

The Court maintained that the fresh suit must be examined on its own merits, untrammeled by the withdrawal of this appeal

The Court held that the appellant’s rights to file a fresh suit are preserved, specifically directing the jurisdictional matrimonial court to entertain a fresh suit if the State or relevant authorities are arrayed as parties

The Court further clarified that such a suit shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law

No order as to costs was made