Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20.In yet another decision reported in 2009(2) TLNJ 465 (Civil) in Vaenda Vs. D.G.Narasimhan) in which, paragraph No.23 it has been held as follows:

?23. In Uma Shanker (Dead) and others v. Sarabjeet (Dead) By L.Rs. and others, AIR 1996 SC 1005, the Honourable- Apex Court was pleased to hold as follows:
On assessment of evidence, the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion that on account of the dispossession of Damri Lal after the compromise decree, a fresh cause of action arose in his favour. There was no occasion for Damri Lal to have the compromise decree executed since he has given possession under the compromise decree. It was his dispossession thereafter which gave rise to the next round of litigation. Such litigation is not barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 47 bars a separate suit only in respect of questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. If there is a subsequent dispossession after the decree for possession is complied with, a suit to obtain possession is not barred simply because there was an earlier decree obtained by the plaintiff for possession which decree had been complied with. In fact, there will ,be ,no question of executing the earlier decree when it has already been complied with.?