Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (1.20 seconds)Mahadevappa Somappa Bhusaraddi vs Dharmappa Sanna Ningappa Bhusaraddi on 15 January, 1942
Now, all the three cases, namely, the cases in --'Keshav v. Gangadhar (D)',--'Savitri v. Holebasappa (E)', -- 'Mahadevappa Sommappa v. Dharmappa Sanna (F)', are binding upon us, & in case we were inclined to differ from any of them, the only thing to do would be to refer the matter to a Full Bench; but the proposition of law which has been stated in these cases, namely, that if the cause of action is the same, then an issue of law which has been decided in determining the previous suit cannot be agitated by the parties in a subsequent suit upon the same cause of action, must be accepted as a correct proposition, though I myself would not put the principle underlying the decisions in these words. It would be an entirely different matter, however, if the decision were to be taken to imply that an issue of law cannot be 'res judicata' between the parties, unless the cause of action is the same; but I do not think that that is what the cases themselves decide.
Keshav Jagannath Dikshit vs Gangadhar Yadneshwar Dikshit on 8 July, 1931
Now, all the three cases, namely, the cases in --'Keshav v. Gangadhar (D)',--'Savitri v. Holebasappa (E)', -- 'Mahadevappa Sommappa v. Dharmappa Sanna (F)', are binding upon us, & in case we were inclined to differ from any of them, the only thing to do would be to refer the matter to a Full Bench; but the proposition of law which has been stated in these cases, namely, that if the cause of action is the same, then an issue of law which has been decided in determining the previous suit cannot be agitated by the parties in a subsequent suit upon the same cause of action, must be accepted as a correct proposition, though I myself would not put the principle underlying the decisions in these words. It would be an entirely different matter, however, if the decision were to be taken to imply that an issue of law cannot be 'res judicata' between the parties, unless the cause of action is the same; but I do not think that that is what the cases themselves decide.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Sheikh Ahmed Bhauddin Parkar And Ors. vs Babu Devji Zujam And Ors. on 20 March, 1929
Now, in my opinion, there is nothing whatsoever to show that when in -- 'Ahmed Bhauddin v. Babu (C)'.
Savitri Ramayya Hegde vs Holebasappa Murgeppa on 21 September, 1931
Now, all the three cases, namely, the cases in --'Keshav v. Gangadhar (D)',--'Savitri v. Holebasappa (E)', -- 'Mahadevappa Sommappa v. Dharmappa Sanna (F)', are binding upon us, & in case we were inclined to differ from any of them, the only thing to do would be to refer the matter to a Full Bench; but the proposition of law which has been stated in these cases, namely, that if the cause of action is the same, then an issue of law which has been decided in determining the previous suit cannot be agitated by the parties in a subsequent suit upon the same cause of action, must be accepted as a correct proposition, though I myself would not put the principle underlying the decisions in these words. It would be an entirely different matter, however, if the decision were to be taken to imply that an issue of law cannot be 'res judicata' between the parties, unless the cause of action is the same; but I do not think that that is what the cases themselves decide.
Article 6 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.M. Narayana Ayyangar vs S.P.R.M. Subramanian Chettiar And Ors. on 8 February, 1935
The point, therefore, is whether the decision arrived at in a previous suit was a decision on a matter of general principle. If it was a decision on a matter of general principle, it would operate as 'res judicata'. There is no doubt, to my mind, that it was decided as a matter of 'general principle' in the suit of 1942 that Government had no right under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code to charge non-agricultural assessment on municipal street land which was diverted by the Municipality to another purpose. That being so, -- 'Narayana v. Subramanian (T)' would not help the appellant.
Bindeswari Charan Singh vs Bageshwari Charan Singh on 18 November, 1935
To my mind, the conditions laid down in Section 11, Civil P. C. are fulfilled in this case also, and accordingly, in view of the decision in -- 'Bindeswari Charan v. Bageswari Charan', (W) it would not be open to Government in the subsequent suit to agitate again the same question which was raised and decided in the previous suit, namely, their incompetence under the law to levy non-agricultural assessment on a land which was similar to the land which was the subject-matter of the 1942 suit.