#constructive res judicata

Tripura High Court rules that res judicata under Explanation V to Section 11 CPC bars a subsequent writ petition seeking interest on post-retiral benefits if the same claim was previously raised and denied. The decision reinforces that even payment of principal amounts does not revive barred interest claims, impacting government employees seeking retiral dues.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that once a temple dispute is finally adjudicated, a petitioner cannot raise a new claim of Mohtamin status, invoking constructive res judicata, limitation, and the clean hands doctrine. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to reopen settled disputes, affecting stakeholders in temple management and similar public endowment cases.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a subsequent partition suit is barred by res judicata if a prior compromise decree excluded ancestral property without establishing either mutual consent or a material mistake, and the plaintiff fails to prove joint family ownership. This sets a critical precedent for heirs seeking to reopen partition claims where assets were silently omitted from earlier settlements.