Omission of available reliefs in prior suit bars subsequent litigation under Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata.

Following the death of her husband, Parvatewwa allegedly adopted Channappa in 1961

In 2002, Parvatewwa filed Suit-I (O.S. No. 346/2002) seeking to declare the adoption deed null and void and for a permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court in 2006

During the pendency of the appeal for Suit-I, Parvatewwa filed Suit-II (O.S. No. 13/2007) seeking a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, alleging Channappa had illegally dispossessed her

Channappa contested Suit-II as barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC

While the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in Suit-II dismissed the suit as barred by these principles, the High Court of Karnataka reversed these findings in a second appeal and decreed the suit in favor of Parvatewwa’s legal representatives

The Court applied Section 11 of the CPC regarding res judicata and Explanation IV thereto regarding constructive res judicata, which deems matters that "might and ought" to have been raised in former proceedings as decided

It relied on Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which mandates that a plaintiff must include the whole of their claim in one suit to prevent a defendant from being vexed twice for the same cause of action

The Court further applied Section 105(1) of the CPC, which allows interlocutory orders (not independently appealable) to be challenged when the final decree is appealed

Finally, the Court applied Section 100 of the CPC and the principles from Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala, restricting second appeal jurisdiction to substantial questions of law and prohibiting the reassessment of concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse

The Supreme Court first clarified that the Trial Court's earlier rejection of an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 4) under Order II Rule 2 did not attain finality; under Section 105 CPC, the defendants were entitled to challenge that decision in the appeal against the final decree

On the merits of the bar, the Court found that the cause of action in both suits was substantially identical as Parvatewwa was aware of Channappa’s adverse claims to ownership during Suit-I

By failing to seek a declaration of title in Suit-I when she was already aware of the cloud on her title, and omitting to obtain leave of the court to reserve such relief, the subsequent Suit-II was barred by Order II Rule 2

Additionally, the Court held that the claim was barred by constructive res judicata because the ownership issue "might and ought" to have been a ground of attack in the first suit

Regarding the High Court's jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its mandate under Section 100 CPC by reassessing facts and reversing concurrent findings without identifying any perversity or a true substantial question of law

It held that Suit-II was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the CPC because the plaintiff failed to seek comprehensive reliefs in the initial litigation despite having the knowledge and opportunity to do so

The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were restored, and Suit-II (O.S. No. 13 of 2007) was dismissed

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs