Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Mangalathammal vs Veerappa Goundan on 5 December, 1918

Narayanaswami Udayan And Ors. vs Mannar on 30 July, 1929

16. If a suit brought on a specific lease is no bar to a subsequent suit brought to recover possession of the same properties based on the plaintiff's title as owner alleging the defendant to be a trespasser (as the decided cases amply establish), I fail to see how a prior suit based on a contract of trusteeship would bar a subsequent suit to recover possession of the same properties based on plaintiff's title as owner and treating the defendant as a mere trespasser. "The series of acts" or transactions " alleged to exist," giving rise to the reliefs claimed: (See Order 1, Rule 1, Civil P. C) are, I think, different in the two suits, and I am of opinion that "the subject matter" and "claim" in the two suits are different within the meaning of Order 23, Rule 1 (3), Civil P.C. I am supported in this view by the decisions of this Court reported in Surja Reddi v. Subba Reddi, Thrikaika Mudathil Raman v. Krishen Nair and Mangalathammal v. Virappa Goundan and as I understand the judgment, also by the decision in Mahomed Rowther v. Abdul Rahman.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Narayanaswamy Udayan And Ors. vs Mannar on 30 July, 1929

Mangalathammal v. Veerappa Goundan 52 Ind. Cas. 813 : (1919) M.W.N. 287. The fourth proposition is where the plaintiff sought to recover a property as owner, a second suit to recover the same property also as owner is barred, even though the details for the ownership are different from those in the first." Thus the decision of Ramesam, J., as I understand the same supports the view I take of the law on the point, and I am unable to see how that decision helps the defendant in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Karippayi Kathiri And Ors. vs Karutiprath Kannan on 22 October, 1924

In a recent case Mr. Justice Sadasiva Iyer held that if a person has two titles derived from two different persons, and if he sues on one title and fails, it is open to him to bring another suit upon the other tibia and succeed Mangalathammal v. Veerappa Goundan (1919) M.W.N. 287. It is unnecessary to discuss this question further. The second appeal is allowed. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and that of the District Munsif restored with costs an both Courts. Time for payment of the value of improvements extended by three months from this date.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1