Holding

A plea of res judicata cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; such determination requires a full trial‑level examination of the earlier decree and its relevance to the present suit.

Summary

The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a property from Hussain Babu, who had earlier bought it from Jayam Ammal. He later discovered that Defendant No. 1, claiming co‑ownership, had obtained an ex‑parte decree in a 1996 partition suit that the appellant alleged was collusive and fraudulently obtained. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, while the defendant moved an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC asserting that the earlier decree barred the suit by res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 because it requires a detailed examination of the earlier suit’s pleadings, judgment and the specific averments in the present plaint. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the suit to its original number, directing its expeditious disposal, while leaving the merits of the res judicata claim open for determination. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an objection of res judicata can be decided under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to bar a suit.
Whether the ex‑parte decree in O.S. No. 298/1996, alleged to be collusive and obtained by fraud, operates as res judicata against the appellant.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether objection of res judicata can be taken to bar the suit u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11 – Rejection of plaint – Appellant purchased a disputed property from one HB, who had in turn purchased it know that defendant no.1, claiming to be a co-owner filed a suit for partition against JA and others and also secured an ex parte decree in his favour – Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction –

Subjects

Order VII Rule 11 CPCPlea of res judicata beyond scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPCEx parte decreeFraudulent decreeDeclaration of titlePermanent injunction

Judgment

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 488 : 2025 INSC 825

Pandurangan
v.
T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 7743 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether objection of res judicata can be taken to bar the suit
u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC.

Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, R.11 – Rejection of
plaint – Appellant purchased a disputed property from one HB,
who had in turn purchased it from JA – Later, appellant came
to know that defendant no.1, claiming to be a co-owner filed a
suit for partition against JA and others and also secured an ex
parte decree in his favour – Compelled by these circumstances,
the appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of
title and permanent injunction – Defendant filed an I.A.
u/Or.VII, R.11 of CPC contending that the suit is barred by res
judicata as the earlier ex parte decree has attained finality –
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate allowed defendant
no.1’s objection – A Civil Revision Petition filed against the
said order was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: The objection of res judicata cannot be taken to bar the
suit u/Or.VII, R.11, CPC – Issue relating to whether the ex parte
decree is obtained by collusion, or whether the defendant no. 1,
as alleged, has played fraud by filing a suit in a court having no
jurisdiction or whether the appellant is a bonafide purchaser or
not need to be examined in detail – This Court has held that such
circumstances require an in-depth examination of the previous
decree, and its impact on the second suit – Res judicata cannot
be decided merely on assertions made in the application seeking
rejection of plaint – From the order passed by the Trial Court it
is apparent that there is neither consideration nor analysis of the
case set up by the appellant in plaint – This Court clarifies that no

* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 489

Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

opinion is expressed on the question as to whether the ex parte
decree in O.S. No.298/96 dated 29.07.1997 would or would not
operate as res judicata barring the present suit, this Court holds
that enquiry into this question could not have been decided u/Or.VII,
R.11 CPC, particularly in the context of the specific averments
made by the appellant in the plaint about the ex parte decree, the
circumstances surrounding the said transaction and the prayer in the
suit for declaration and the consequential relief. [Paras 9, 10, 12]

Case Law Cited
Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors., 2021
INSC 387 : [2021] 8 SCR 387 : (2021) 9 SCC 99; Keshav Sood v.
Kirti Pradeep Sood, Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2023 decided by
the Supreme Court – relied on.
V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava [2003] Supp. 6 SCR 927 :
(2004) 1 SCC 551 – referred to.

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

List of Keywords
Order VII, Rule 11 CPC; Plea of res judicata is beyond the scope
of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC; Ex parte decree; Fraudulent decree.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7743 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRPMD No. 1454 of 2014

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
G.Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, Ms. Meenakshi Rawat,
C.Adhikesavan, Ms. Ratna Priya Pradhan, Harikrishnan P.v,
C.kavin Ananth.
Advs. for the Respondents:
V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv., S. Rajappa, R Gowrishankar, Ms. G Dhivyasri,
Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Nanchil J Deekshith.
490 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Delay Condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of the judgment of the High Court
of Madras1 dismissing the Civil Revision Petition against the order
passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo2
allowing Defendant No. 1’s objection to the plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code3 on the ground of res judicata.
For the reasons to follow, we have allowed the appeal and held that
the objection of res judicata cannot be taken to bar the suit under
Order VII, Rule 11, CPC.
4. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are
that the appellant had purchased the disputed property from one
Mr. Hussain Babu in 1998, who had in turn purchased it from Ms.
Jayam Ammal in 1991. Appellant contends that while being in peaceful
possession of the property, when an advocate- commissioner sought
to inspect his property he made necessary enquiries and came to
know that defendant No. 1, claiming to be a co-owner filed a suit4
for partition against Ms. Jayam Ammal and others and also secured
an ex parte decree5 in his favour. It is in execution of that ex parte
decree that the advocate-commissioner was appointed by the
Court. Compelled by these circumstances, the appellant instituted
the present suit6 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It
is the specific contention of the appellant that the ex parte decree
had been fraudulently and collusively obtained, and it is also not
binding on him.

1 Judgment and order dated 20.03.2019 in CRP(PD) No. 1454/2014.
2 Dated 27.01.2014 in I.A. No. 12 of 2010 in O.S. No. 60 of 2009.
3 Hereinafter “CPC”
4 O.S. No. 298 of 1996
5 Dated 29.07.1997 in O.S. No. 298/1996 passed by the Sub-Court, Cuddalore.
6 O.S. No. 60 of 2009
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 491

Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

5. The defendant opposed the suit by filing a written statement. Pending
disposal of the suit, the defendant filed an Interlocutory Application7
under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC contending that the plaintiffs suit
is barred by res judicata as the earlier ex parte decree has attained
finality. The appellant countered it by contending that he was not
a party to the earlier suit and therefore the principle of res judicata
would not apply.
6. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant is not a party
to the suit decided on 29.07.1997. At the same time, there is also
no doubt about the fact that the appellant claims title from Hussain
Babu who was the third defendant in the earlier suit. However, the
circumstances in which the ex parte decree came to be passed,
the alleged collusion between the parties in that ex parte and also
the reason for the ex parte suit attaining finality are all specifically
raised and contested in the present suit by the appellant. It is for
this reason that the appellant also sought a decree for declaration.
7. In order to appreciate the claim and contest of the appellant, the
relevant portions of the plaint are reproduced herein for ready
reference;
“7. When plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property his vendors brother Rasool
informed him that an advocate-commissioner is going to
inspect the property. Plaintiff was naturally shocked. When
further probed he informed the plaintiff that one Jayarama
Chettiar had filed a suit against one Jayam Ammal wife of
Rangasami Chettiar and others for partition in O.S. No.298
of 1996 on the file of the subordinate judge, Cuddalore and
Jayam Ammal died immediately after suit and her daughter
Selvi did not contest the suit and allowed it to go ex parte.
Hussain Babu who is a party defendant to the suit was
away in Abu Dhabi and he honestly believed that Selvi will
contest the suit and protest the interest of the purchaser.
Plaintiff was kept in the dark about the pendency of the
suit. At the time of purchase,he was not put on notice. If
it has been done, he would not have ventured into the
sale. Plaintiff’s vendors father did not mention about the

7 I.A. No. 12 of 2010 in O.S. No. 60 of 2009
492 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

pendency of the suit at the time of sale. Plaintiff honestly
believed that the property is free of any encumbrance and
believed so he purchased the property.
8. Now plaintiff finds that the suit ended in an ex parte
decree. The property was sold by Jayam Ammal on
13.10.1991 to Hussain Babu. At that time no suit was
pending. Suit was laid much later in 1993 and Jayam
Ammal died immediately after suit. Second defendant
her daughter allowed an ex parte decree to be passed.
Hussain Babu the purchaser from Jayam Ammal believed
when second defendant promised that she will take care
of the defence. Plaintiff has not been in the picture. As
stated above everything was suppressed, plaintiff submits
that the ex parte decree is collusive and after the ex
parte decree a show of resistance was made by second
defendant. It is quite apparent that the decree passed ex
parte is a collusive one and so provisions of section 52 of
the Transfer of property Act cannot be attracted.
9. Plaintiff came to know of all this when his vendor’s
representative told him a week ago that an advocate-
commissioner is going to inspect the property. So, plaintiffs
are filing the suit for declaration that the preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.298 of 1996 on the file of the subordinate
judge, Cuddalore is not binding on the plaintiff.
10. Plaintiff now finds that the 1st defendant has played a
fraud on court in filing the suit in the sub court Cuddalore
to suit his convenience when the Subordinate Judge’s
Court Cuddalore has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the plaint. There are six items in the said suit. The plaint
in O.S. No.298 of 1996 reasons that item 4 was allotted to
his father in the partition, items 2,3, and 5 were purchased
by his father in the name of Jayam Ammal item 6 is a
saw will. Items 2 to 6 are situated in Parangipettai village.
So, the suit should have been instituted in the sub court
Chidambaram. But to suit his convenience a property
desiring one cent item situate in Naduveerapattu is included
to invoke the jurisdiction of the sub court Cuddalore. This
property does not belong to Ist defendant’s father. This
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 493

Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

is a clear case of fraud. So the decree passed in O.S.
No.298/96 by a court has no territorial jurisdiction is wholly
invalid and 1st defendant has not derived any right to the
property under a decree which is void.
11. The suit property as stated above belonged to Jayam
Ammal by purchase and the 1st defendant has no claim
over the same.
12. The preliminary decree in O.S. No. 298/96 on the file
of the subordinate judge, cuddalore is not binding on the
plaintiff as it is a collusive decree.”
8. In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors8, this
court held that the adjudication of the plea of res judicata is beyond
the scope of Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, the court held:
“25. On a perusal of the above authorities, the guiding
principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule
11(d) can be summarised as follows:
25.1. To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred
by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to
be referred to.
25.2. The defence made by the defendant in the suit
must not be considered while deciding the merits of the
application.
25.3. To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata,
it is necessary that (i) the “previous suit” is decided, (ii) the
issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially
in issue in the former suit; iii) the former suit was between
the same parties or parties through whom they claim,
litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues
were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent
to try the subsequent suit.
25.4. Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata
requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and

8 (2021) 9 SCC 99
494 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

decision in the “previous suit”, such a plea will be beyond
the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d), where only the statements
in the plaint will have to be perused.”
(emphasis supplied)

9. Issue relating to whether the ex parte decree is obtained by collusion,
or whether the defendant No. 1, as alleged, has played fraud by
filing a suit in a court having no jurisdiction or whether the appellant
is a bonafide purchaser or not need to be examined in detail.
This Court has held that such circumstances require an in-depth
examination of the previous decree, and its impact on the second
suit. Res judicata cannot be decided merely on assertions made in
the application seeking rejection of plaint. As held by this Court in
V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava,9 identifying similarity in causes
of action should be a matter for trial where documents from the first
suit are studied and analysed. Res judicata cannot be a matter of
speculation or inference. In Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood,10
this Court took a strong view against the plea of res judicata being
raised in applications seeking rejection of plaint and held as follows:
“5. As far as scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is
concerned, the law is well settled. The Court can look into
only the averments made in the plaint and at the highest,
documents produced along with the plaint. The defence
of a defendant and documents relied upon by him cannot
be looked into while deciding such application.
6. Hence, in our view, the issue of res judicata could not
have been decided on an application under Rule 11 of
Order VII of CPC. The reason is that the adjudication on
the issue involves consideration of the pleadings in the
earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court and the judgment
of the Appellate Courts. Therefore, we make it clear that
neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench
at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata
raised by the appellant on merits.”

9 (2004) 1 SCC 551.
10 Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2023.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 495

Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.

10. From the order passed by the Trial Court it is apparent that there is
neither consideration nor analysis of the case set up by the appellant
in plaint. Further, the Trial Court questioned the legality of plaintiff’s
action on the ground that, “he did not raise any objection regarding
the decree passed in O.S. No. 298/96. Therefore, this Court comes
to the conclusion that the plea of fraud raised by the 1st respondent
is not acceptable one.” With this view of the matter, the Trial Court
rejected the objection of the appellant to the applicability of Order
VII, Rule 11 CPC by holding;
“12. The respondents counsel submitted that such a type
of question cannot be decided as preliminary issue. In
support of his contention. They have filed our Hon’ble
court judgment 2009(4) LW 432, and 2007 A.L.W 580,
2000(3) MLJ 342,2002(1)LW 398. But those are dealing
with regarding court fees. But as far as the case on hand
is concerned. It is not regarding court fees. Therefore the
above said citations is not apply to this suit.
For the above said reasons and explanations. The petition
is allowed. No cost.”
11. We are not in agreement with the approach and reasoning adopted
by the Trial Court. The appellant’s revision under Article 227 was
similarly dismissed by the High Court holding that the decision of
the Trial Court does not warrant interference.
12. While we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the
question as to whether the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 298/96
dated 29.07.1997 would or would not operate as res judicata barring
the present suit, we hold that enquiry into this question could not
have been decided under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, particularly in
the context of the specific averments made by the appellant in the
plaint about the ex parte decree, the circumstances surrounding the
said transaction and the prayer in the suit for declaration and the
consequential relief.
13. For the reasons as indicated hereinabove, we allow the appeal, set
aside the order passed by the High Court in CRP (PD) No. 1454
of 2014 dated 20.03.2019 and restore the suit O.S. No. 60 of 2009
before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Portonovo to its
original number. In view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2009,
there shall be a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit.
496 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14. While concluding, we clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case and all the grounds raised by the
defendants, including those relating to res judicata are kept open
for final determination.
15. With these observations, this appeal stands allowed. The parties
shall bear their own costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan