The issue in the first suit was limited only as to whether the respondent-plaintiff has a right to construct the latrine in the passage. The issue as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was exclusively entitled to possession thereof did not fall for consideration in the earlier round, whereas in the third round, the said issue directly fell for consideration. PARA 18. Held, Though, Mr. Ankit Goel, learned counsel, strenuously argued, relying on certain judgments of this Court, that the findings in an earlier proceeding could operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings, in our view, the said judgments would not be applicable in the facts of the present case. Para 17. Findings on issue(s) which actually fell for consideration in the previous proceedings alone can operate as res judicata.
[Anil Kumar Modi v. Tarsem Kumar Gupta, (2023) 2 SCC 201]