Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Jujjuvarapu Kotamma vs Pappala Simhachalam And Ors. on 25 January, 1967 cites

L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others on 26 October, 1961

5. As we have stated at the very outset the only question of res judicata. We are concerned not so much with the specific provisions of this doctrine as with the specific provisions of Section 11 C. P. C. which governs the case. Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Ramachandrarao, has rightly argued that though the general principles of res judicata based, as they are on the avowed policy of law that no one should be vexed twice over in respect of the same matter and that there should be finality to the decisions of Courts and consequent end to litigation, are wider than the provisions in that behalf contained in S. 11 C. P. C. and are applicable to cases which do not come within the four corners of the said section. It is well settled that where a case does fall within in the terms of Section 11 C. P. C. the conditions laid down therein must be strictly complied with. If the conditions prescribed therein under which the decision in a suit can be res judicata are not satisfied it is not permissible of res judicata. This argument gains sufficient strength also by reason of the compelling authority of the Supreme Court in Janakirama Iyer v. Nilakanta Iyer, . There Gajendragadkar. J., ( as he then was ) speaking for the Court observed thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 129 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Ahmedbhoy Hubibbhoy vs Cassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy And Rahimbhoy ... on 21 June, 1889

Learned Counsel contends that defendant 5 had thus enjoyed the privity of estate and hence could bind the plaintiff. Reliance is placed on Ahmedbhoy Hubibhoy v. Vulleebhoy Cassumbhoy, (1881-82) ILR 6 Bom 703 at p. 709. That case is a little assistance to the respondents. On the other hand it goes against them. There Latham, J., at page 709 divided the persons other than parties to a suit in which a decree or judgment has been obtained into 3 classes with reference to their position as affected by the judgment. The first category is of persons who under the old Section 13 C. P. C. claim under the parties to the former suit. The learned Judge says that in the language of English Law they are privies to those parties and such privies according to Lord Coke are of three kinds:- (1) privies in blood, (2) privies in estate and (3) privies in law. Learned Judge refers to a six-fold division according to wharton's Law Lexicon, page 764. He however expresses that he was unable to discover any original authority for such division. Therein he refers also to privies in representation such as the executor or administrator to his testator or intestate. The second main division is of persons who though not claiming under the parties to the former suit were represented by them. Such persons are the persons interested in the estate of a testator and share-holders in a company etc.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Sita Ram vs Amir Begam And Ors. on 5 May, 1886

9. Evidently the plaintiff neither literally speaking nor otherwise by any stretch of imagination, can be deemed to claim under the 5th defendant, who was a party to the former suit. Much as the learned Counsel would like to regard her as a privy in estate, she is not within the meaning of that term stretched to its fullest extent. A privy to a party in English Law is but a person claiming under that party and he stands in the shoes of he party under whom he claims. Plaintiff is not certainly any of such privies. The learned author of Bigelow on Estoppel in 5th edition has stated that the ground of privity is the property and not personal relation and this view has been accepted by Mahmood, J., in Sita Ram v. Amir Begum, (1886) ILR 8 All 324 at p. 327 and cited with approval by the Madras High Court in Seshappayya v. Venkat Ramana Upadya, (1910) ILR 33 Mad 459 at o. 461-2. The learned author at page 143 of the said edition has stated thus:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Dhrubendra Deb Roy And Ors. vs Kumarendra Deb Roy And Ors. on 4 February, 1954

In India members of a joint undivided family also are such persons as held in Jogendro Deb Roy v. Funindro Deb, (1873) 14 Moo Ind App 367 at p. 376 (PC). The third category is of strangers who are neither privies to nor represented by the parties to the former suit. Whereas category Nos. 1 and 2 may be bound by the judgments in the former suit, category No. 3 will not be affected by judgment inter parties which is not a judgment in rem. There is nothing in the statement of the learned Judge (based mostly as it is on English law) which can support the contention of the learned counsel. It cannot be accepted on the basis of the said decision that the plaintiff was a privy to or was represented by any party to the former suit.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1