Res judicata and Order II Rule 2 do not bar suits concerning distinct properties.

The plaintiff claimed rights over the ‘A’ Schedule property, measuring 20 cents in Re-survey No. 71/9, relying on documents tracing title from Vedakkan Nadar and a patta.

An earlier suit by the plaintiff concerning the separate ‘B’ Schedule property in Re-survey No. 71/19 had been dismissed, and that dismissal was confirmed on appeal.

The plaintiff later sued concerning the ‘A’ Schedule property, seeking demarcation by fixing boundary stones and a permanent injunction.

The Trial Court decreed the suit; the First Appellate Court reversed, principally on res judicata grounds.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in holding that the suit was barred by res judicata

Whether Order II Rule 2 CPC barred the suit where the earlier action concerned the ‘B’ Schedule property in Re-survey No. 71/19 and the present action concerned the claimed distinct ‘A’ Schedule property in Re-survey No. 71/9

The Court applied the principle of res judicata: the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must also have been directly and substantially in issue, and finally decided, in the former suit.

It also applied Order II Rule 2 CPC, under which a later suit is barred only where it arises from the same cause of action and seeks relief that was available but omitted from the earlier suit; the provision cannot be invoked merely because the properties are adjacent.

No precedent was cited.

The earlier suit concerned the ‘B’ Schedule property in Re-survey No. 71/19, while the present suit concerned the ‘A’ Schedule property in Re-survey No. 71/9 and arose from an alleged obstruction to identifying and demarcating that property.

The properties’ adjacency and the defendant’s claim to possess them as one continuous plot did not establish that the issue in the present suit had been finally determined in the earlier suit.

Nor was there material establishing that both suits arose from the same cause of action or that the present relief had been available in the earlier action, as required to apply Order II Rule 2 CPC.

It allowed the second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, restored the Trial Court’s decree, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.