Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(7) In this connection Mr. Ramachandra submitted that the rival claims of the parties to succeed to the estate of deceased Ishwar has to be decided afresh on the evidence before it by the Civil Court at Sirsi. He sought to sustain this argument by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wazid, . That was an appeal which arose out of suits instituted by the plaintiffs as sons of one Ramalingam, for possession of movable and immovable properties in the town of Madras, against the executors of Ramalingam's will and others. The defendants sough to non-suit the plaintiffs on the strength of a judgment of the former Mysore High Court which had rejected the plaintiff's claim for possession of movable and immovable properties ascertaining that the property in suit was the joint family property of themselves and their deceased father Ramalingam and that the latter was not competent to dispose the same by will. It was contended by the executors that the decision of the Mysore High Court operated as res judicata. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court repelled the contention on the ground that the suits in the District Court at Bangalore did not relate to the personal status of Ramalingam and his sons but to the character of the property devised by the will and that the judgment of the foreign Court was not conclusive. While discussing this contention, the Supreme Court laid down: