Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.44 seconds)
Documents citing Legal Representatives Of Decd.Patel ... vs Legal Representatives Of Decd.Patel ... on 9 July, 2014

Jamia Masjid vs K.V.Rudrappa (D) Th.Lrs on 23 September, 2021

In a more recent decision in Nand Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Jagdish Prasad (Dead) Through Legal Representatives 29, a Bench of two judges reiterated the principle that if a matter has only collaterally or in an auxiliary manner been in issue or decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding would not ordinarily be res judicata in a later proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue. Justice Hemant Gupta (writing for a two judge bench) noted that the material test to be applied is whether the adjudication of the issue is material and essential for the decision. In Nand Ram, the land leased by the plaintiffs to the defendants was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A dispute arose on the apportionment of the compensation. The suit was decided against the defendant on the ground that defendant did not pay the lease rent for more than 12 months and thus according to the lease agreement, the lease had come to an end. It was thus held that the defendant would not be entitled to the compensation. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an eviction suit asserting that the defendant was in possession of the land that was not included in the lease deed. The High Court in the second appeal held that the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata since the former suit had conclusively decided on the title of the suit property. On appeal, this court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the issue of title was not conclusively decided in the former suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 15 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

V.Ekambaram (Died) vs S.Sekar on 13 February, 2024

22. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Somakka (Dead) by Legal Page 13 of 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1041 of 2010 Representatives vs. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) by Legal Representatives reported in (2022) 8 SCC 261, for the proposition that the first appeal is a valuable right available to the party and the Lower Appellate Court while deciding the appeal has to follow the procedure contemplated under Order XLI and Rule 31 and to independently analyze the documents and evidences and arrive at a finding of fact. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the judgment of the lower appellate court is not based on the material available on record following the procedure as contemplated under law and therefore it is perverse and sought for allowing of this second appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranga Pillai vs Mannar Pillai (Deceased) on 12 December, 2022

29. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the manner in which the Will has to be proved. The proof of the Will is irrespective of a defense being taken against it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported in 2017 (1) SCC 257 – Ramesh Verma (Dead) 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis through Legal Representatives Vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another, has observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Cs. No. Scj 507/2018 Usha Rani vs Babu Lal And Ans. on 25 February, 2023

In a more recent decision in Nand Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Jagdish Prasad (Dead) Through Legal Representatives on 19th March, 2020, a Bench of two judges reiterated the principle that if a matter has only collaterally or in an auxiliary manner been in issue or decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding would not ordinarily be res judicata in a later proceeding where the matter is directly and substantially in issue. Justice Hemant Gupta (writing for a two judge bench) noted that the material test to be applied is whether the adjudication of the issue is material and essential for the decision.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Usha Mohandas vs A.N.Ramachandran Nair on 29 July, 2025

In the decision in Ramesh Chand (Dead) Through Leval Representatives v. Asruddin (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Ors, (2016) 1 SCC 653, relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants, the Apex Court held that merely because it is lawful to grant specific relief, courts are not bound to grant the same. The court further held that where conditions or circumstances of contract give unfair advantage to the plaintiff, decree for specific performance cannot be granted. In paragraph 8 the court held that :
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next