LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label RESJUDICATE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RESJUDICATE. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Whether the Respondents/Tenants (‘Tenants’ for brevity) of the demised property are barred by the principle of res judicata from challenging the findings of the Trial Court especially the Trust’s ownership of the demised property, since the said Tenants have filed only one appeal, i.e. arising from O.S.6/78, without assailing identical conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78.= We are of the opinion that having failed or neglected or concertedly avoided filing appeals against the decrees in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78 the cause of the Respondents/Tenants was permanently sealed and foreclosed since res judicata applied against them.=2014- Oct. Part - CIVIL APPEAL No.4227 OF 2003 SRI GANGAI VINAYAGAR TEMPLE & ANR. .…..APPELLANTS Versus MEENAKSHI AMMAL & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS

›
                                                                  REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     ...
Monday, May 13, 2013

Suit - Eviction suit - Issue regarding title between parties - Recording of finding in favour of plaintiff - Subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the same parties - Effect of earlier suit on the subsequent suit - Held: Finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties - Question of title was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit - Res judicata. The plaintiff, mother of the respondents, filed a suit for eviction against the defendant, father of the appellants. The issues were framed regarding the plaintiff's claim to the title over the suit property and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim to the title but did not grant decree of eviction since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties. The appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another suit against the defendant seeking declaration of title over the property and recovery of its possession from the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives-respondent filed the second appeal. The High Court set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the first appellate court and restored the judgment and the decree of the trial court. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.= Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The issue of title was expressly raised by the parties in the earlier eviction suit and it was expressly decided by the eviction court. The question of title was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit for eviction. Hence, the High Court was right in holding that the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties. [Para 17] [740-D-F] Pardip Singh vs. Ram Sundar Singh AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510 - approved. Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad and ANOTHER (2000) 8 SCC 123; Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.by L.Rs.(D) vs, Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 350 - referred to. Case Law Reference: (2000) 8 SCC 123 Referred to. Para 14 (2000)3 SCC 350 Referred to. Para 15 AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510 approved. Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2579 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Appeal from appellate decree No. 236 of 1987. H.L. Agarwal, Gaurav Agrawal, Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellates. Seema Kashyap, S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2579 OF 2004 Md. Nooman & Ors. ….Appellants ...