Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Chunder Coomar Mitter vs Sib Sundari Dassee on 3 March, 1882

Nripendra Nath Bhowmik And Ors. vs Basanta Kumar Lahiri on 15 January, 1923

In the case of Chunder Coomar Mitter v. Sib Sundari Dassee [1882] 8 Cal. 631, it was pointed out, that ''when the decision of a lower Court is appealed to a superior tribunal and that tribunal for any reason does not think fit to decide the matter, it is left an open question. We have held so here over and over again, and it is not because in point of form the appeal in the first suit was dismissed, that the decision of the Munsif can be considered as confirmed."
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Sri Bommadevera Sattynarayana ... vs Dasika Sriramulu And Ors. on 8 April, 1915

18. Under these circumstances, to I sold that the question of the liability of the 2nd defendant to refund the water cess in respect of the Faslis 1314-1318 is res judicata, would be a denial of justice based on a fiction which is directly at variance with the facts, and which is not based on the principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata: that principle for the present purposes may he stated to be that neither the Courts nor the parties should he permitted to be harassed by the same question being repeatedly brought up for adjudication. It has been held that with regard to the previous Faslis the plaintiffs had forfeited the right to have their rights determined by the Courts. That is no reason why they should be placed under a similar disability in regard to the latter Faslis, though the reason for the forfeiture is absent. This is in accordance with the decisions of Chunder Coomar Mitter v. Sib Sundari Dassee 8 C. 631 : 11 C.L.R. 22; Nilvaru v. Nilvaru 6 B. 110; Gungabishen Bhagat v. Raghoo Nath Ojha 7 C. 381 : 9 C.L.R. 34; Balkiskan v. Kishan Lal 11 A.148 : A.W.N. (1889) 42 : 13 Ind. Jur. 309.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bishnu Charawn Modak vs Mohesh Chandra Mohanti And Ors. on 9 August, 1909

1. This is an appeal by the defendant tenant against whom the plaintiffs brought an action to have it declared that certain lands covered by a kabuliat, dated the 1st Sraban 1299, were liable to assessment and to recover the assessed rent and damages for the years 1303 to 1310 B.S. Both the lower Courts have decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The only point taken in second appeal is as to the application of the rule of res judicata. The lower appellate Court says that the objection as to res judicata was not pressed on behalf of the defendant, and that it had been rightly overruled by the Court of first instance. In a former suit, No. 12 of 1901, between the same parties, under the provisions of' Section 46 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, seven issues were framed. The Munsif found those issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Then the Subordinate Judge affirmed that order of dismissal but only with "reference to two issues, and ho loft undecided the fifth issue, namely, was the kabuliat in question bona fide? "On these facts, it is impossible to contend with success that the present suit for assessment of rent, on the basis of the same kabuliat is barred by the operation of res judicata. The learned vakil for the defendant-appellant candidly admits his difficulty,, and is unable to cite any authority opposed to the cases mentioned in the judgment of the Munsif,, in particular, the case of Chunder Coomar Mitter v. Sibsundari Dassee 11 C.L.R. 22 18 C. 631 whore Garth, C.J. observed," when the decision of a lower Court is appealed, to a superior tribunal, and that tribunal for any reason does not think fit to decide the matter, it is loft an open question. We have held so hero over and over again; and it is not because in point of form the appeal in the first suit was dismissed, that the decision of the Munsif can be considered as confirmed." On the plain meaning of the word final," I entertain no doubt that a matter cannot be considered to be finally decided, unless in point of fact it was actually decided by all the tribunals before which that particular matter came for decision.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1