Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Panchanada Velan vs Vaithinatha Sastrial And Ors. on 10 November, 1905

M.C.A.R.C.S. Chockalinga Thevar Firm ... vs K.A. Sankarappa Naicker And Anr. on 9 December, 1941

In Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial (1905) 16 M.L.J. 63 : I.L.R. 29 Mad 333 (F.B.), there were cross suits between the same parties on the same facts. The suits were tried together and were dealt with in one judgment, although separate decrees were drawn up. An appeal was filed, but only against one of the decrees. The question was whether the fact that no appeal had been filed in the other suit brought into operation Section 13, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, which corresponds to Section 11 of the present Code. The Full Bench held that the doctrine of res judicata had no application when the object of the appeal, in substance if not in form, was to get rid of the decision which was pleaded in bar.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

S. Kandaswami Chettiar As Trustee Of ... vs R.A. Murugesa Chettiar And Anr. on 22 February, 1982

5. The ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts in the present case. As in the decision of the Supreme Court, in the present case also the question of trusteeship has directly and subsequently been in issue in both the suits. Though in the case before the Supreme Court, the trial Court gave two separate judgments, when the matter came to the District Court, the finding was given only in a common judgment. The Supreme Court's judgment that the issue was barred by res judicata was with reference to the appeal preferred in the High Court and not with reference to the appeal preferred in the lower appellate Court. With reference to the appeal preferred in the High Court it was against the common judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court. Therefore, the decision could not be distinguished on the ground that in the trial Court the judgments in the two suits were not common but separate. We need notice only one decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant and that is a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastirigal (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 333 : 16 M.L.J. 63. In that case, a tenant filed a suit against the landlord for the grant of patta for fasli 1310 with certain terms agreed1 to by him. The landlord filed a separate suit for a direction against the tenant to accept patta for the same fasli on the terms and conditions suggested by him. The question at issue in both the cases was identical, namely, as to the terms of the patta for the year. The suits were trial together and judgment was given on the same day. Though the decree to be passed in each suit was in effect to be the same, the suit filed by the tenant was dismissed while the suit filed by the landlord was decreed in accordance with the judgment. The tenant preferred an appeal against the dismissal of this suit, but he did' not prefer any appeal against the decree granted in the landlord's suit. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the decree in the landlord's suit not having been appealed against would preclude the determination of the question again in the appeal preferred by him in his suit. Against that judgment, a second appeal was preferred which was referred to a Full Bench which held that the appellate Court was not precluded from dealing with the appeal by reason of the doctrine of res judicata. Though it is possible to point out certain differences between the facts in that decision and the facts in the present case, it would not be proper to overlook the ratio of the judgment itself and I think the learned Counsel for the, appellant is right in the submission that the ratio is definitely for the view that it was not necessary for him to have filed an appeal against the decree in the first respondent's suit. But, as I have already pointed out, there is a direct judgment of the Supreme Court, though without reference to the Full Bench decision of our High 'Court, which had taken entirely a different view from that of the Full Bench of this Court and I am bound by the decision, of the Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Sevadappa Goundar vs K.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar, Special ... on 5 January, 1940

7. It is of course obvious from the facts of that case that, if the second appeal had been filed, it would have been filed in the same Court as the first appeal and no question arises at all as to the competency of the appellate Court to have decided the two appeals itself. The essential distinction in the present case is that the learned District Judge of Coimbatore was not competent to decide an appeal against the decree in the mortgage suit as the amount involved in the mortgage suit was Rs. 11,200. An appeal therefore lay only to the High Court. It seems to me that this is a fundamental distinction and renders the arguments of the learned Judges of the High Court in Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial (1905) 16 M.L.J. 63 : I.L.R. 29 Mad. 333 (F.B.) inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next