In Brief
Property owners (respondents) obtained a decree for possession of leasehold land. The appellants, claiming rights as lessees through post-expiry assignments, resisted dispossession in execution proceedings. The lower court allowed their application to remain in possession. On appeal, the High Court reversed this, ruling they had no valid leasehold rights. Subsequently, the appellants sought compensation for property improvements under the Kerala Tenants Improvements Act in fresh execution proceedings. The Supreme Court held that this claim was barred by constructive res judicata. Since the compensation claim was intrinsically linked to their earlier possession claim and arose within execution proceedings governed by Code of Civil Procedure Rules 97-103 (which form a complete code for such matters), the appellants ought to have raised it then. Their failure to do so bars the claim in later proceedings.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.