Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Isher Singh vs Sarwan Singh And Ors. on 30 September, 1964

Pappapiah vs Venkataramiah on 29 January, 2015

12.As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the plea relating to oral partition is one of the material and substantial issues in the earlier suit and the decision made in the earlier suit is to greater extent binding on the parties herein and is essential to decide the issue and to grant relief in the present suit, as such, the ingredients necessary for applying Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied and the principle of res judicata is hence squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and is rightly applied by the lower Appellate Court. It is true that in the judgment cited on the side of the appellants, the learned brother Judge was not inclined to apply the principles of res judicata mainly on the ground that the issue involved in both the cases is not one and the same, but the same is not the situation in the present case. As such, the judgment cited on the side of the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court on more or less identical facts, made an observation in the Authority reported in ISHER SINGH V. SARWAN SINGH AND OTHERS (AIR 1965 SC 948(1), which reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

Pritam Chand vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 5 April, 2010

Further, in support of this contention that the principle of res judicata was wrongly applied, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by L.Rs. and others Vs. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by L.Rs. and others AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1569, Isher Singh Vs. Sarwan Singh and others AIR 1965 Supreme Court 948, State of Maharashtra and another Vs. M/s National Construction Company, Bombay and another AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2367(1), Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Vithu Hira Mahat (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. 2009(4) Civ.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tulsabai (Dead) Through Lrs vs Savitri Bai 19 Sa/136/2005 Sona Bai ... on 25 November, 2019

25. In Suit No.1, Nanhu has claimed title with respect to the property shown in Schedule 'A' of the plaint of that suit and the suit property in Suit No.2 shown in Schedule 'C' was included in that 15 suit, but that was never adjudicated as plaintiff­ Nanhu did not seek any adjudication claiming the relief against Joginder Singh, father of the plaintiffs claiming the including of suit land bearing Khasra No.216/2 and defendant No.4 as formal and only for sake of convenience. (See Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh and others10 and Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Chikkannamma Devi Temple Trust vs Sri. Lakshman Singh on 24 May, 2023

160. The counsel for plaintiff also relied upon the citation reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court page No.948 in case of Isher Singh v/s Sarwang Singh, wherein it is held that under Section 11 of CPC, the matter directly and substantially in issue between previous suit and present suit and which are decided by the previous suit amounts to res-judicata. Therefore, in order to make applicable Section 11 of CPC, to this particular case each and every condition of provisions of Section 11 of CPC should be satisfied. Such citation is helpful to the case of defendant rather then plaintiff, because the suit property in this present suit and previous suit O.S.300/1966 are one and same and reliefs of declaration of ownership and possession and injunction over suit property are also one and same and the plaintiff of this present suit are successors of parties to the previous suit by name Venkatasubba Rao, Seetharam Singh and Muniswamappa and the present plaintiffs are litigating under the same title with that of their predecessor in title claiming as trustees of plaintiff temple Trust under founder of Trust by name B. N. Venkatasubba Rao, but not under independent title. Therefore, when the competent court of Law in O.S.300/1966 right from trial court, Hon'ble High 158 Court upto Hon'ble Supreme Court decreed O.S.300/1996 holding that defendants are owners of suit properties, such issue which was decided by previous courts are directly or substantially in issues in this present suit and it amounts to Res-judicata. Therefore, suit is hit by Section 11 of CPC and suit is not maintainable.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Laxmichand And Ors. vs Ramkumar And Ors. on 9 September, 1966

10. In AIR 1952 Cal 201, the learned Judge considered the question as to when a question of title decided in a rent suit may operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit based on title. The first suit was brought against the tenant for rent. The tenant resisted the claim on the ground that another person was his landlord and that as he had paid rent to that person the suit could not proceed Against him. Subsequently that other person was made a pro forma defendant in that case. In his reply he claimed that he alone was entitled to the property being the reversioner of a widow and in defence of the suit he raised the plea that the transfer made by the widow being without legal necessity it was void. The Court set out this question for determination as to whether there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the transfer by the widow was for legal necessity. The Court came to the conclusion that there was legal necessity for the transfer by the widow and, therefore, the plaintiff was held entitled to succeed in the suit for rent. In the subsequent suit by the reversioner to avoid the sale the decision in the previous suit about the legal necessity was held to be res judicata. All that this decision shows is that even certain findings in a rent suit may become res judicata for the purposes of a title suit, but again it will depend on the question whether me fate of the case depended on the determination of such a question.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Yakubhai Ahmedji Mistri vs Imamuddin Husenuddin Kadri on 30 January, 1991

In the case of Isher Singh v. Sarwan Singh, reported in AIR 1965 SC 948, once again. S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was considered and it has been held that the controversy between the parties must have been "directly and substantially in issue" both in the earlier proceedings as well as the current proceedings in order to bring home the, operation of S. 11 of C. P.C. It was also held that there must have been "finding recorded" in the earlier proceedings in order to bar the subsequent proceedings.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next