Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.(D)By ... vs Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Others on 23 February, 2000

Nitchenametla Subrayudu And Anr. vs Nookala Subramanyam And Ors. on 3 February, 2004

"We may add one other important reason which frequently arises under Section 11 of CPC. The earlier suit by the respondent against the Panchayat was only a suit for injunction and not one on title. No question of title was gone into or decided. The said decision cannot, therefore, be binding on the question of title. See in this connection Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dababhai Ummer, , where this Court, on a detailed consideration of law in India and elsewhere held, that even if, in an earlier suit for injunction, there is an incidental finding on title, the same will not be binding in a later suit or proceeding where title is directly in question, unless it is established that it was "necessary" in the earlier suit to decide the question of title for granting or refusing injunction and that the relief for injunction was founded or based on the finding on title. Even the mere framing of an issue on title may not be sufficient as pointed out in that case."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The vs Vadlapudi Narayana And Others2. One Of ... on 31 December, 2021

"10. We may also add one other important reason which frequently arises under Section 11 CPC. The earlier suit by the respondent against the Panchayat was only a suit for injunction and not one on title. No question of title was gone into or decided. The said decision cannot, therefore, be binding on the question of title. See in this connection Sajjadanashin Sayed v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer [(2000) 3 SCC 350] where this Court, on a detailed consideration of law in India and elsewhere held, that even if, in an earlier suit for injunction, there is an incidental finding on title, the same will not be binding in a later suit or proceeding where title is directly in question, unless it is established that it was "necessary" in the earlier suit to decide the question of title for granting or refusing injunction and that the relief for injunction was founded or based on the finding on title. Even the mere framing of an issue on title may not be sufficient as pointed out in that case."
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M V Ramana - Full Document

Jattanaika vs Manjappa on 28 June, 2023

"10. We may also add one other important reason which frequently arises under Section 11 CPC. The earlier suit by the respondent against the Panchayat was only a suit for injunction and not one on title. No question of title was gone into or decided. The said decision cannot, therefore, be finding on the question of title. See in this connection Sajjadanashin Sayed Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, 2000 (3) SCC 350, where this Court, on a detailed consideration of law in India and elsewhere held, that even if, in an earlier suit for injunction, there is an incidental finding on title, the same will not be binding in a later suit or proceeding where title is directly in question, unless it is established that it was "necessary" in the earlier suit to decide the question of title for granting or refusing injunction and that the relief for injunction was founded or based on the finding on title. Even the mere framing of an issue on title may not be sufficient as pointed out in that case."
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Amarannavar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next