The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 29.08.2024 and restored the plaint in a suit for partition filed by the daughters of a Hindu male who died intestate in 1985. Justice Augustine George Masih, in a judgment dated in 2026 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.23709 of 2024 titled B.S. Lalitha and Others v. Bhuvanesh and Others, held that a second application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on substantially the same grounds is barred by the principle of res judicata, including interlocutory res judicata, even if filed by different defendants sharing a common interest.
The appellants (three daughters) filed a suit in 2007 claiming partition and 1/8th share each as Class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. An earlier application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC filed by some defendants was allowed by the trial court but set aside by the High Court in 2013 in RFA No.168 of 2009. The High Court held that even assuming a 2000 partition and no coparcenary rights for daughters, the suit was maintainable as the father died intestate and daughters had rights in his share. This order attained finality. After several years, legal representatives of another defendant filed a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. The trial court dismissed it, but the High Court allowed the revision and rejected the plaint.
The Supreme Court held that the second application was barred by res judicata. All defendants (sons/legal representatives) litigated under the same title and shared a common interest in defending the partition and resisting the daughters’ claim. Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC applied. The substance of the issue — whether the suit was barred by Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act — remained identical. Mere addition of sub-clauses or filing by different defendants could not circumvent the finality of the 2013 order. The Court clarified that Vineeta Sharma (which dealt with coparcenary rights and the saving clause for pre-20.12.2004 partitions) did not alter the basis of the 2013 order, which rested on independent succession rights under Section 8.
The Supreme Court further observed that Section 6(5) is a saving clause protecting valid pre-2004 partitions from being reopened; it is not a jurisdictional bar preventing institution of a suit. Questions regarding the validity and effect of the alleged partition (including the 2000 registered deed) and the daughters’ rights are matters for trial and cannot be decided at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. Disputed questions of fact and the ultimate success of the suit are irrelevant for rejection of the plaint.
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the plaint restored for trial on merits. Status quo with respect to the properties was maintained.
Case Title: B.S. Lalitha and Others v. Bhuvanesh and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. __ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.23709 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: 2026
Coram: Justice Augustine George Masih
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 