The Supreme Court restored a decree for title and possession, holding that Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC bars only those grounds a plaintiff 'might and ought to have' raised earlier, judged by reasonable diligence against the ambit and nature of the earlier controversy — and that suits to cancel specific sale deeds did not oblige the owner to also litigate his undisputed title to the residual estate.
On 15 May 2026, a two-judge bench held that Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is a narrow saving clause that protects pre-20 December 2004 partitions from the retroactive coparcenary amendment of 2005, but does not bar a partition suit and does not displace daughters' independent Section 8 rights — which accrued on the intestate's death and pre-existed the 2005 amendment. An oral partition among sons alone cannot defeat the daughters' succession share, and a second Order VII Rule 11 CPC application on identical grounds is barred by res judicata.
Bombay HC holds that setting aside an award under Sections 34/37 restores parties to the pre-award position, leaving the disputes free to be re-arbitrated.