Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Satyadhyan Ghosal And Others vs Sm. Deorajin Debi And Another on 20 April, 1960
In the matter of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin
Devi2 the Supreme Court has held that Section 11 CPC
enacts the rule of conclusiveness of judgment as to
the points decided, in every subsequent suit between
the same parties.
Daryao Singh vs State Of U.P. on 15 February, 2019
15. The aforesaid dictum has been approved by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Daryao Singh v. State
of U.P.3.
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By L.Rs. ... vs Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 22 March, 1976
16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Mohd.
Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa4 laid down the
conditions for giving effect to the plea of res
judicata and it was held that the following
conditions must be proved:
Sarguja Transport Service vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, ... on 12 November, 1986
18. The abovestated proposition has been followed
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarguja
Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal Gwalior6.
Jaswant Singh & Anr vs The Custodian Of Evacuee Property, New ... on 7 May, 1985
In the matter of Jaswant Singh and Anr. v.
Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi 7 it has been
held by the Supreme Court that in order that a
defence of res judicata may succeed, it is necessary
6 AIR 1987 SC 88
7 AIR 1985 SC 1096
11
to show that not only the cause of action was the
same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity
of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the
former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in
the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact
founded upon the same cause of action which was the
foundation of the former suit or proceedings.
Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma And Ors vs Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai And ... on 27 April, 2000
In the matter of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v.
Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai8 it has been held
by the Supreme Court that there should be an issue
raised and decided, not merely any finding on any
incidental question for reaching such a decision. So
if no such issue is raised and if on any other
issue, if incidentally any finding is recorded, it
would not come within the periphery of the principle
of res judicata.
Kewal Singh vs Lajwanti on 4 October, 1979
23. Reverting to the facts of the present case in
the light of principle of resjudicata as enumerated
8 AIR 2000 SC 2301
9 (1980) 1 SCC 290
12
in Section 11 of the CPC and applying the principle
of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above
stated judgments (supra) to the facts of the present
case, it would appear that in Suit No.1 filed by
Nanhu the land bearing Khasra No.216/2 area 0.50
acre, which was held by Joginder Singh, father of
the plaintiffs herein, was subjectmatter of Suit
No.1 and Joginder Singh was also impleaded as
defendant No.4 in Suit No.1. Copy of earlier suit
i.e. Suit No.1 was filed in the instant suit as
Ex.P4, wherein in para5 the following averment was
made:
"5- ;g fd QsjfgLr l ckyh tehu dks e`r BaMkjke rkjh[k
3@3@1976 eq 2000@& :i;k esas tksxhUnz firk ds ikl c;ukek
jftLVªh dj nsdj n[ky dCtk ns fn;k rFkk og dkfct gSA oknh
dks izfroknh ua0 4 ls dksbZ nkok ikuk ugha gS dsoy tehu [kjhnk
gS blfy, c;ukek ds Qjhd cuk;k gSA"
Isher Singh vs Sarwan Singh And Ors. on 30 September, 1964
25. In Suit No.1, Nanhu has claimed title with
respect to the property shown in Schedule 'A' of the
plaint of that suit and the suit property in Suit
No.2 shown in Schedule 'C' was included in that
15
suit, but that was never adjudicated as plaintiff
Nanhu did not seek any adjudication claiming the
relief against Joginder Singh, father of the
plaintiffs claiming the including of suit land
bearing Khasra No.216/2 and defendant No.4 as formal
and only for sake of convenience. (See Isher Singh
v. Sarwan Singh and others10 and Sajjadanashin Sayed
Md. B.E. Edr.
Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.(D)By ... vs Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Others on 23 February, 2000
(D) by L.Rs. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and
others11.)