Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)
Gurdeo Singh And Chandrikah Singh vs Chandrikah Singh And Rashbehary Singh on 10 April, 1907 cites

Magniram vs Mehdi Hossein Khan on 3 June, 1903

25. We are not unmindful that in a litigation between the present defendants 9 to 12 on the one hand as plaintiffs, and defendants 1 to 4 (as mortgagors), defendants 5 to 8 (as puisne encumbrancers) and defendant 14 (as subsequent mortgagee), as defendants on the other hand, the present defendants 5 to 8 succeeded in obtaining a declaration that not only in respect of their bond of 1884, but also in respect of a sum of Us. 1,172 out of the consideration for their bond of 1887, they were entitled to priority over the bond of 1885. That question, however, appears to have been then decided between the present defendants 5 to 8 and 9 to 12; it is clear that there was no controversy in that litigation between defendants 5 to 6 and 14, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, in respect of this matter. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that the decision in that litigation in any way operates as res judicata for, as is now well settled, when an adjudication between defendants is necessary to give the appropriate relief to the plaintiff, there must be such an adjudication, and in such a case the adjudication will be res judicata between the defendants as well as between the plaintiff and the defendants; but for this, there must be a conflict of interest amongst the defendants, and the judgment must define the real rights and obligations of the defendants inter se; see Magniram v. Mehdi Hossein Khan (1903) I.L.R. 31 Calc.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Run Bahadoor Singh vs Lucho Kooer on 30 August, 1880

24. On the other hand, the finding that there was no evidence to show that the alleged mortgagee of 1886 was in any way interested in the mortgaged premises, could not be taken as the basis of the judgment of the Court. The decrees might be said to be decrees in spite of that finding, and when the suits were dismissed as against the mortgagee of 1886, it was not open to him to challenge, by way of appeal, the finding of the Subordinate Judge upon the question of the validity of his mortgage. In this view of the matter, that finding does not in any way operate as res judicata. See Run Bahadur Singh v. Lucho Koer (1884) I.L.R. 11 Calc.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 70 - Full Document
1   2 Next