Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.75 seconds)Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Iftikhar Ahmed And Others vs Syed Meharban Ali And Others on 26 February, 1974
11. When the evidence on record establishes that the suit in OS No. 3/1/1951 was collusive or fraudulent to defraud the creditors, it is a relevant fact and the Court would take cognizance thereof to find whether the trial Court is precluded to try the issue. The High Court had not averted to nor bestowed its attention, this aspect of the matter except mechanical application of the principles laid by this Court in Iftikhar Ahmed's case (supra). The pleadings in OS No. 3/1/1951 were not produced in the Courts below. The judgment, annexure II, indicates that the respondents and their another brother and the parents were impleaded as defendants 1 to 5. Sixth defendant was the decree-holder in another suit. It was claimed therein that the defendants 1 to 4 were said to have executed possessory mortgage in favour of one Ismail, the plaintiff therein. A joint written statement was filed by them admitting the claim of the plaintiff who had pleaded the gift said to have been given by Maqdoom in favour of the three sons and his wife. They have admitted the same. Thus it would be clear that there was no conflict of interest between the defendants in that suit. On the other hand they had confessed to the claim set up by the alleged possessory mortgagee therein. Though the appellant claimed title to the property through the parents of the respondents, there was neither conflict of interest nor was it necessary to decide about the validity of the gift said to have been executed by Maqdoom. The dispute therein was whether the possessory mortgagee was bound by the decree and the creditor could proceed against the Maqdoom and the said property is liable to sale for realization of his decree debt? In that context the relevancy or validity of the gift is immaterial. It was admitted therein that they had executed possesory mortgage in favour of Ibrahim, plaintiff therein. On that basis, the only question would have been whether he would be entitled to resist the execution of the decree obtained against Maqdoom by the 6th defendant therein? The oral gift or sale of 4 acres under Ex. D-3 was not the subject-matter of OS No. 3/1/1951. The High Court, therefore, committed gross palpable error of law in applying the doctrine of res judicata between co-defendants relying upon decree in OS No. 3/1/1951 dated September 24, 1951, even it could be pressed into service in the second appeal."
Pandit Ishwardas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 9 January, 1979
27. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 551 (Ishwardas v. State of M.P.). The learned counsel relying on this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court submitted that in this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the pre-conditions for attraction of the principles of res judicata. The learned counsel relied on paragraph 6 of this judgment which is quoted herein below:
Sunni Central Waqf Board And Others vs Gopal Ingh Vishrad And Others on 22 August, 1990
In a full bench decision of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1991 Allahabad (Sunni Central Waqf Board and Ors. v. Gopal Singh Virshad and Ors.) the issue was again raised and decided. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 32 of this decision are quoted herein below:
Article 299 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shashibushan Prasad Misilra & Anr vs Babuji Rai & Ors on 27 November, 1968
But if the learned Judge meant to lay down the above a quoted principle for general application then I may say with the greatest respect, that the observations are too wide and are directly in conflict with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Prithvi Raj's case, and would have the effect of rendering the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 absolutely nugatory. The language of Order 14, Rule 2 is quite clear and in a case where issues are purely of law which do not require any investigation into facts and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issue of law only, it is incumbent upon the Court to determine the issues of law first. If this course is not adopted by the Courts and the determination of the issues of law is postponed to be determined along with the issues of fact it will mean unnecessary inconvenience and expense to the parties and wastage of time and labour of the Court as well. In many cases if issues of law such as on a point of limitation, res judicata, jurisdiction or the suit being barred on the face of it by any law, arise and the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is of opinion, that the case or any part thereof will be disposed of on such issues, the Court has no option having regard to the provisions of Order 14, Rule 2 but to determine those issues first. If on the other hand the Court is of opinion that the issue of law cannot be determined without investigation into facts or the point of law raised is not clear or that the case or any part of it cannot be disposed of, the Court may decline to determine the issues of law first. Therefore, the Court should address itself to these vital points and then decide whether the issues of law should be decided first or they should be decided along with the issues of fact."