Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Shashibushan Prasad Misilra & Anr vs Babuji Rai & Ors on 27 November, 1968

Smt. Usha Gopirathnam W/O Shri ... vs Shri P.S. Ranganathan, High Clere Stud ... on 22 January, 2008

In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of shashibhushan Prasad Misra (dead) and Anr. v. Babuaji Rai (dead) by his legal representatives and Ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 909 while dealing with the issue as to whether the suit lands belonged to the deity, the Court observed that since this question was not finally decided between deity and other contesting defendants in appeal, in the absence of any decision by High court on merits on this question, there was no final decision against the deity and thus there was no question of res judicata between the co-defendants.
Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 1 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

Smt. Asha Lata Debya vs Shri Chandi Das Bhattacharya on 8 June, 2004

But if the learned Judge meant to lay down the above a quoted principle for general application then I may say with the greatest respect, that the observations are too wide and are directly in conflict with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj's case, and would have the effect of rendering the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 absolutely nugatory. The language of Order 14, Rule 2 is quite clear and in a case where issues are purely of law which do not require any investigation into facts and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law only, it is incumbent upon the Court to determine the issues of law first. If this course is not adopted by the Courts and the determination of the issues of law is postponed to be determined along with the issues of fact it will mean unnecessary inconvenience and expense to the parties and wastage of time and labour of the Court as well. In many cases if issues of law such as on a point of limitation, res judicata, jurisdiction or the suit being barred on the face of it by any law, arise and the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of opinion, that the case or any part thereof will be disposed of on such issues, the Court has no option having regard to the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 but to determine those issues first. If on the other hand the Court is of opinion that the issue of law cannot be determined without investigation into facts or the point of law raised is not clear or that the case or any part of it cannot be disposed of, the Court may decline to determine the issues of law first. Therefore, the Court should address itself to these vital points and then decide whether the issues of law should be decided first or they should be decided along with the issues of fact."
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 March, 2007

Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashibhushan Prasad Misra (dead) and Anr. v. Babuaji Rai (dead) by his legal representatives and others in order to contend that as soon as the appeal was filed from the decision of the Delhi High Court, the decision of the Learned Single Judge lost its finality and cannot operate as Res Judicata on the Orissa petition. In support of that contention, Learned Counsel has relied on paragraph-4 of Shashibhushan.
Orissa High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vaidiyanathan, G. Satanathan, G. ... vs P. Sambanda Mudaliar (Died) S/O. ... on 29 January, 2007

8. Under these circumstances the question emerges whether the High Court was right in reversing the appellate decree on the doctrine of res judicata. At this juncture it may be relevant to mention that the trial court negatived the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Though it was open to sustain the trial court decree on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, it was not argued before the appellate court on its basis. Thereby the findings of the trial court that the decree in OS No. 3/1/1951 does not operate as res judicata became final. The question then is whether the doctrine of res judicata stands attracted to the facts in this case. It is true that under Section 11 CPC when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed, litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. But for application of this doctrine between co-defendants four conditions must be satisfied, namely, that (1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. This is the settled law as held in Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg; Shashibushan Prasad Mishra v. Babuji Rai; and Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali. Take for instance that if in a suit by A against B & C, the matter is directly and substantially in issue between B & C, and an adjudication upon that matter was necessary to determine the suit to grant relief to A; the adjudication would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between B & C in which either of them is plaintiff and the other defendant. In other words, if a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound as between each other.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

Raj Singh vs Bhup Singh Through Lr Surat Singh on 4 August, 2010

15. The appeal withdrawn by Sultan Singh on 12.8.1980 did not make Ex.D-1 any less binding as has been contended. In fact, Ex.D-1 then had attained a finality. The judgment of S.P.Mishra (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant has no application. The ratio of which was that only when the matter is subjudice and an appeal is pending till that time the judgment of the trial court loses its character. It nowhere states if an appeal is then withdrawn, the judgment of the trial court would become a nullity.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document

Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors on 23 March, 1995

8.Under these circumstances the question emerges whether the High Court was right in reversing the appellate decree on the doctrine of res judicata. At this juncture it may be relevant to mention that the trial court negatived the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Though it was open to sustain the trial court decree on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, it was not argued before the appellate court on its basis. Thereby the findings of the trial court that the decree in OS No.3/1/1951 does not operate as a res judicata became final. The question then is whether the doctrine of res judicata stands attracted to the facts in this case. It is true that under s. 11 C.P.C. when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiff or co-defendant. But for application of this doctrine between co-defendants four con- ditions must be satisfied, namely, that (1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. Ibis is the settled law as held in SM. Sadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali, AIR 1943 PC 115, Shashibushan Prasad Mishra v. Babuji Rai & Ors., 1969 (2) SCR 971; and Iftikhar Ahmed & Ors. v. Syed Meharban Ali, 1974 (2) SCC 151. Take for instance that if in a suit by 'A' against 'B & C', die matter is directly and substantially in issue between B & C, and an adjudication upon that matter was necessary to determine the suit to grant relief to 'A'; the adjudication would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between B & C in which either of them is plaintiff and the other defendant. in other words, if a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a can between co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be, bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co- defendants, the codefendants will not be bound as between each other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 138 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Vaidiyanathan vs P. Sambanda Mudaliar (Died) on 29 January, 2007

" 8. Under these circumstances the question emerges whether the High Court was right in reversing the appellate decree on the doctrine of res judicata. At this juncture it may be relevant to mention that the trial court negatived the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Though it was open to sustain the trial court decree on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, it was not argued before the appellate court on its basis. Thereby the findings of the trial court that the decree in OS No. 3/1/1951 does not operate as res judicata became final. The question then is whether the doctrine of res judicata stands attracted to the facts in this case. It is true that under Section 11 CPC when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed, litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. But for application of this doctrine between co-defendants four conditions must be satisfied, namely, that (1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. This is the settled law as held in Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan v. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg; Shashibushan Prasad Mishra v. Babuji Rai; and Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali. Take for instance that if in a suit by A against B & C, the matter is directly and substantially in issue between B & C, and an adjudication upon that matter was necessary to determine the suit to grant relief to A; the adjudication would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between B & C in which either of them is plaintiff and the other defendant. In other words, if a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound as between each other.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P K Misra - Full Document

S.Uttamchand vs R.Anjugam on 12 June, 2012

"8. Under these circumstances the question emerges whether the High Court was right in reversing the appellate decree on the doctrine of res judicata. At this juncture it may be relevant to mention that the trial court negatived the plea of res judicata as a preliminary issue. Though it was open to sustain the trial court decree on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, it was not argued before the appellate court on its basis. Thereby the findings of the trial court that the decree in OS.No.3/1/1951 does not operate as res judicata became final. The question then is whether the doctrine if res judicata stands attracted to the facts in this case. It is true that under Section 11 CPC when the matter has been directly or substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claimed, litigating under the same title, the decree in the former suit would be res judicata between the plaintiff and the defendant or as between the co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. But for application of this doctrine between co-defendants four conditions must be satisfied, namely that (1) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims; (3) the question between the defendants must have been finally decided; and (4) the co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit. This is the settled law as held in Syed Mohd. Saadat Ali Khan V. Mirza Wiquar Ali Beg; Shashibushan Prasad Mishra v. Babuji Rai; and Iftikhar Ahmed V. Syed Meharban Ali. Take for instance that if in a suit by 'A' against 'B & C', the mater is directly and substantially in issue between B & C, and an adjudication upon that matter was necessary to determine the suit to grant relief to 'A'; the adjudication would operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between B & C in which either of them is plaintiff and the other defendant. In other words, if a plaintiff cannot get at his right without trying and deciding a case between co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case, and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next