Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 174 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors on 23 March, 1995

Ram Chand vs Gurbhajan Singh & Ors on 9 August, 2023

v) The judgment relied upon by the Appellant in Mehboob Sahab versus Syed Ismail and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 693, relied upon by the Appellant is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the judgment and decree which was sought to be considered for operation of res judicata was passed on 24.09.1951, whereas, the later suit was filed much later. This case is not a case where the former suit was simultaneously filed and tried but decided a little prior to the suit in question. Further, as per the decision in the said case dealing with the application of the doctrine between Co- defendants, the very first ingredient held to be necessary is that there must be a conflict of interest between the Defendants concerned, and the same is not there in the present case inasmuch as in the suit filed by Jai Ram, Ram Chand- Defendant No.1 had pleaded that the suit should be dismissed as was pleaded by the other Defendants in their respective 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 19:38:01 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:102759 2023:PHHC:102759 Regular Second Appeal No. 21 of 1991 (O&M) 12 And Other Connected Cases written statement. The claim in the suit filed by Jai Ram was based on family settlement in which there was no conflict of interest between the Co-defendants. Even the second ingredient that it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the relief which the Plaintiff claims, is also missing in the present case and as such, res judicata shall not apply inasmuch as even if there is conflict between the Defendants, that has to be such which must be necessarily required to be decided before giving relief to the Plaintiff. Admittedly, in the former suit the claim primarily was on the basis of family settlement and that issue having been decided against the Plaintiff l.e. Jai Ram, it was not necessary to decide the collateral issue because that was not substantially or directly required for deciding the substantial issue of family settlement.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

M.Sreedhar vs The A.P. Co-Operative Tribunal, ... on 24 June, 2013

19. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner refuted the contentions raised by the counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and contended that in ARC.No.38 of 2000 both the petitioner and the Society are parties and a finding had been recorded therein that it was barred by limitation; those findings are binding on the Society in view of the principle of res judicata being applicable as between co-respondents; the Society having filed counter in ARC.No.3 of 2002 opposing the claim of 3rd respondent is estopped from now supporting her in this Writ Petition. He relied on Makhija Construction and Engg. (P) Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and others19; Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and others20; and Bojja Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others21.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - M S Rao - Full Document

Gaffor Sahib vs Mumtaj on 15 April, 2021

The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasheeda Khatoon case wherein earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahboob Sahab case [Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and others reported 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.367 of 2021 in (1995) 3 SCC 693] was reiterated, does not come to the aid of the appellant in the case on hand though the principles and three ingredients that there should be declaration of gift, acceptance of the gift and delivery of possession are available. This Court is of the view that Hiba if pleaded has to be proved by independent witnesses to the transaction. It may not be necessary to dilate further on this aspect as the pleadings in trial Court are predicated on Ex.A3 and not on Hiba.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

R.Sundaram vs M/S.Raja Theaters

In other words, the first two conditions, namely that, (i) there must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned and (ii) it must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the reliefs which the plaintiff claims, as specified in the above decision of the Supreme Court, are not fulfilled in this case. Hence, the contention raised by the appellant/plaintiff regarding res-judicata, does not arise. Consequently, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in this regard by relying upon Order 21 Rule 58 CPC that any dispute regarding the findings of the Court in the order passed, will have to be adjudicated only in the appeal against that order/judgment of the trial Court and in the absence of filing of appeal, the order of the trial Court would attain finality and the same would operate as res-judicata, cannot be countenanced. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the documents marked in the Garnishee proceedings, it is clear that there http://www.judis.nic.in is a categorical recital in the family arrangement, wherein Raghunatha 43/54 S.A.823 of 2016 and A.S.578 of 2016 Chettiar confirmed that he will not be responsible for the liabilities of the partnership firm and that all the liabilities of the firm would be taken over by Viswanathan Chettiar and his sons. It also refers to 30% share held in the partnership firm by Raghunatha Chettiar, which will also be taken over by the branch of Viswanatha Chettiar. The said family arrangement also confirms that under an oral arrangement, it was decided that 30% share will go to the branch of Viswanatha Chettiar and if for any reason, Viswanatha Chettiar requires a release by way of a document, it will have to be executed by Raghunatha Chettiar within thirty days. Therefore, it is clear that the letter of retirement dated 01.03.1979 was executed by Raghunatha Chettiar pursuant to the family arrangement. In any event, the family arrangement only records the earlier oral partition.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Mustaq Ahmad & Ors vs Mohammad Akhatar & Ors on 13 April, 2017

First of all it would be worth mentioning that the question of registration of the gift deed was not in issue in the said case as the deed of gift was already registered in that case. Secondly, if I carefully read the observation, it nowhere says that if the gift is in writing, it would not be required to be registered. It simply says that gift by a Mohammadan is not required to be in writing and if it is not in writing, it need not be registered.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next