Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Kani Ram And Anr vs Smt. Kazani And Ors on 19 April, 1972

Bharat Chandra Das vs Prangopal Ch. Das on 17 June, 1982

In a decision as reported in AIR 1972 SC 1427 (Kani Ram v. Smt. Kazani) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general principles of res iudicata were held to be applicable to execution proceeding in the same suit even before the addition of explanation VII of Section 11. C.P.C. A decision, although it may not be res iudicata in certain cases, may still be a binding precedent,
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Gurawwa And Anr. vs Dilawar Hussain Shiledar And Ors. on 8 November, 1974

In (Kani Ram v. Kazani) it was held that the decision given in the first execution proceeding on a mixed question of law and fact, and not one of law only, would operate as res judicata in a subsequent execution proceeding between the same parties. In the earlier execution proceeding, the Court came to the conclusion that the learned Judge who passed the decree for eviction under Section 13 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. was satisfied that one or more of the grounds mentioned in that section had been made out before passing the order and therefore held that the decree for eviction was valid. It was therefore held to be a decision on a mixed question of law and fact and operated as res judicata.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Tippamma And Others vs Annarao And Others on 13 August, 1998

In the case of Mohanlal Goenka v Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others v Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy and Kani Ram and Another v Smt. Kazani and Others (at para 28), doctrine of constructive res judicata does apply to execution proceedings where a plea which could be raised and ought to have been raised has not been raised will be deemed to have been decided against one who raises that subsequently. Here such plea of defect on the ground of non-mentioning any of the encumbrances which could and ought to have been raised under Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC at the stage of settlement of sale proclamation, during execution proceedings, not to have been raised then could not be raised under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC stage as being barred by constructive res judicata doctrine.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khem Chand Son Of Shri Dwarika Prasad vs The State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 7 February, 2006

23. The last issue, which deserves to be addressed, is the manner in which the District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to re-determine the issues, which had already attained finality in the judgment dated 25.4.2005. The Apex Court in the case of Kani Ram and Anr. v. Smt. Kazani and Ors. , while relying on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Prasad , has held that a mixed question of law and fact determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties could not be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between them, The principle of res-judicata as contained in Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code were reiterated.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A P Sahi - Full Document

Maj. Raj Kishan And Ors. vs Sh. Chiranji Lal And Ors. on 5 November, 1990

In view of the specific objections having been dealt with by the executing Court on 2-1 1-1981, this very question could not be re-agitated again and in any case the Senior Subordinate Judge could not bold to the contrary It has been held in scores of rulings including the one Kani Ram and Anr. v. Smt, Kazani and Ors., (19/2) 2 S.C.C. 192, that the principles of re judicata apply to the execution proceedings as well.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1