Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Samavedam Sarangapani Ayyangar vs Kandala Venkata Narasimhacharyulu And ... on 27 November, 1950

Chandreshwar Prasad And Anr. vs Mt. Maturni And Ors. on 31 August, 1965

It was held in that case that the question whether the plaintiff was the next heir of Narasimhacharyulu when the succession opened was not barred by res judicata, and that that question had to he decided in the suit before a decree for possession could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for me to go to that extent in the present case because, as I have already said, the decision in Title Suit No. 202 of 1950 cannot be said to be a decision to the effect that no female reversioner intervened between the plaintiff of the present suit and the estate of Sheosaran.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avtar Singh And Ors. vs Th. Atma Singh And Ors. on 29 December, 1981

The same view was taken by the Nagpur High Court in Raju Chattar Singh v. Diwan Roshan Singh, AIR 1946 Nag 277, A single Judge of Madras High Court in a later case viz, Samavedam Sarangapani Ayyangar v. Kandala Venkata Narasimhacharyulu, AIR 1952 Mad 384, however, struck a different note, and disapproving the view taken by the Division Bench in AIR 1936 Mad 051 (supra), held that Section 43 has to be read subject to the provisions of Section 11, and unless the Court which passed the earlier declaratory decree had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the subsequent suit, the parties to the earlier suit, or those claiming through them, were not bound by the declaration granted by it. A similar view was taken in two more Full Bench decisions, namely, Sheikh Maqsood Ali v. H. Hunter, AIR 1943 Oudh 338, and Veeranna v. Sayamma, AIR 1958 Andh Pra 363, wherein also it was held that Section 43 had to be read subject to the provisions of Section 11.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - A S Anand - Full Document

Valliammal And Ors. vs Palani Goundan on 3 February, 1955

4. A case in which the facts were very similar to the facts in the present case came up for decision before Viswanatha Sastri J., in -- 'Sarangapani Iyengar v. Narasimhacharyulu', (B). There, a person who claimed to be the presumptive reversioner of the last male owner filed a suit for a declaration that a settlement deed executed by the daughter of the last male owner claiming to be entitled to the properties absolutely was not binding on him and other reversioners. Both the daughter and the alienee were impleaded. The suit was decreed. A subsequent suit for recovery of possession of the lands was brought on the death of the daughter Reliance was placed on the decision in the previous suit as constituting res judicala'. It was held that the earlier decision to the extent it declared that the settlement was not binding on the plaintiff and other reversioners was 'res judicata'. But it was not 'res judicata' so as to bar the defendant from raising the question whether the plaintiff was the next heir en titled to succeed to the estate on the death of the daughter. The learned Judge pointed out that the title put forward by the plaintiff was different from or independent of the title put forward by him in the earlier suit and therefore the bar of 'res judicata' would not apply. We are in entire agreement with this decision of the learned Judge, and in particular with the following observations: "It is true that in the prior suit there was an issue as to whether the paintiff was the nearest reversioner entitled to maintain the suit for a declaration of the invalidity of the settlement deed as against the reversioners. This issue was found in favour of the plaintiff, negativing the claim of a rival reversioner who claimed priority to the plaintiff. But the question then was whether the plaintiff was the then presumptive reversioner and the question now is whether the plaintiff is now the next heir of the last male owner. A decision on the former question cannot conclude the latter .....The title now put forward by the plaintiffs is different from and independent of the title put forward in the earlier suit, and the bar of 'res judicata' would not apply. The present claim of the plaintiff is based on his own individual right as heir which he could not possibly have included in the earlier Suit filed as a presumptive reversioner. The prior decision cannot, therefore, be relied upon as 'res judicata' on the question of the plaintiff's title to the property as heir-at-law." (page 387).
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1