Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Dola Khetaji Vahivatdar vs Balya Kanoo Patel on 29 November, 1921

Ningaya Bharmanna Chiksindgi vs Madivalava Gurappa Moratgi on 13 August, 1930

In Dola Khetaji v. Balya Kanoo A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 29 it was held that the suit was not barred as the two suits were mutually inconsistent and if the plaintiff failed in proving the mortgage, he still had a number of years within which he could have sued to get back the property on payment of the consideration mentioned in the Satekhat. The principle underlying the decision is that if the ground of attack in the second suit was so incongruous with the ground of attack in the previous suit that they could not be joined together conveniently as being mutually destructive of each other, the constructive principle of res judicata would not apply.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rajaram Maniram Pardeshi vs Jagannath Rawathmal Marwadi on 8 July, 1948

Similarly in Dola Khetaji v. Balya Kanoo (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 803 the facts were that the plaintiff sold the property in suit to the defendant on March 16, 1906. On August IS, 1906, the defendant executed a satehhat to the plaintiff agreeing to re-sell the property to him on receipt of Rs. 395 from him any time within 12 years. In 1911 the plaintiff filed a suit claiming to redeem the property on the ground that the document of March 16 was a mortgage transaction. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff, thereupon, sued for specific performance of the satekhat. It was contended that the claim was res judicata inasmuch as the plaintiff might have sued in the suit of 1911 for specific performance of the satekhat. The Court held that the suit was not barred as the two suits were mutually inconsistent, and if the plaintiff failed in proving the mortgage, he still had a number of years within which he could have sued to get back the property on payment of the consideration mentioned in the satekhat. So, though the earlier suit was for redemption and though it was dismissed, the suit under the satekhat was not inconsistent with the decision in the mortgage suit. I, therefore, hold that the present suit is barred by res jttdicata in view of the decisions of the Nasik Court in suit No. 425 of 1935 and of the High Court in First Appeal No. 278 of 1937. In view of this finding on this issue, it is not necessary to consider the other issues.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1