20. A was a trustee of a trust. After A's death, B wrongfully takes possession of the trust property. C, the son of A files a suit for recovery of possession of the property against B as the legal heir of A in his individual capacity. But C did not succeed. Then C files another suit for recovery of trust property against B in the capacity of the trustee as he was appointed as trustee after the death of A. Whether the second suit is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata?

Facts of the Case

A was the trustee of a trust and held possession of trust property.
After A’s death, B wrongfully took possession of the trust property.
C, A’s son, filed a suit against B in his individual capacity as legal heir, seeking recovery of the property, but failed.
Later, C was appointed as trustee and filed a second suit against B for recovery of trust property in his official capacity as trustee.

Whether the second suit filed by C in a different capacity is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
Whether C could have or ought to have included the claim as trustee in the earlier suit.
Whether Explanation IV of Section 11 CPC applies to claims made in different legal capacities.

Section 11 of CPC provides that no court shall try a suit that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties.
Explanation IV of Section 11 introduces the doctrine of constructive res judicata, which bars claims that “might and ought to have been made” in the earlier suit.
A suit filed in a different legal capacity may be considered distinct unless it appears that the plaintiff could and should have raised the second claim in the first suit.
The capacity in which a party sues is material; a suit in a personal capacity may not bar one in a representative capacity (such as a trustee), unless the earlier claim could validly have been brought in that capacity.

The second suit by C in the capacity of trustee is not barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
The earlier suit was filed by C in his individual capacity, and he had no authority to act as a trustee at that time.
Since he was appointed trustee only later, the cause of action in the second suit arose after his appointment, making the second suit maintainable.
Courts have recognized that suits filed in different legal capacities (individual vs. representative) do not attract constructive res judicata if the capacity is materially different and the cause of action arose later.