Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (1.34 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
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 11 C. 301, 306, Nundo Lall Bhuttacharjee v. Bidhoo Mookhy Debee 13 C. 17, Thakur Mogundeo v. Thakur Mahadeo Singh 18 C. 647, Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Ambica Churn Bandopadhya 24 C. 900 and Concha v. Concha (1886) L.R. 11 App. Cas. 541., 552.
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Peary Mohun Mookerjee vs Ambica Churn Bandopadbya, Chairman Of ... on 30 June, 1897
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 11 C. 301, 306, Nundo Lall Bhuttacharjee v. Bidhoo Mookhy Debee 13 C. 17, Thakur Mogundeo v. Thakur Mahadeo Singh 18 C. 647, Peary Mohun Mukerjee v. Ambica Churn Bandopadhya 24 C. 900 and Concha v. Concha (1886) L.R. 11 App. Cas. 541., 552.
Magniram vs Mehdi Hossein Khan on 3 June, 1903
5 to 8 and Nos. 9 to 12; it is clear that there was no controversy in that litigation between defendants Nos. 5 to 6 and No. 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 31 C. 95, Chajju v. Umrao Singh 22 A. 386, Balambhat v. Narayanbhat 25 B. 74, Muhammad Kuni Rowthan v. Visvanathaiyar 26 B. 337 and Cottingham v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1843) 3 Hare 62.
Gopal Lal vs Benarasi Pershad Chowdhry on 16 February, 1904
It is not necessary to examine minutely the decisions in Srigopal v. Pirthi Singh L.R. 29 I.A. 118; 24 A. 429 and Gopal Lal v. Benarasi Pershad Chowdhry 31 C. 428, upon which reliance is placed on behalf of the defendants Nos. 5 to 8.
Patha Muthammal And Ors. vs Esup Rowther And Ors. on 2 February, 1906
With all respect for the learned Judges, who decided that case, we find ourselves entirely unable to adopt their view, and we are supported in our conclusion by the decision of the Madras High Court in Patha Mulhammal v. Esup Rowther 29 M. 365, Muthayya v. Venkataratnam 25 M. 553 and Achuta Ram Raja v. Subbaraju 25 M. 7.
Muthayya vs Venkataratnam And Anr. on 5 March, 1901
With all respect for the learned Judges, who decided that case, we find ourselves entirely unable to adopt their view, and we are supported in our conclusion by the decision of the Madras High Court in Patha Mulhammal v. Esup Rowther 29 M. 365, Muthayya v. Venkataratnam 25 M. 553 and Achuta Ram Raja v. Subbaraju 25 M. 7.
Chajju vs Umrao Singh And Ors. on 12 June, 1900
5 to 8 and Nos. 9 to 12; it is clear that there was no controversy in that litigation between defendants Nos. 5 to 6 and No. 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 31 C. 95, Chajju v. Umrao Singh 22 A. 386, Balambhat v. Narayanbhat 25 B. 74, Muhammad Kuni Rowthan v. Visvanathaiyar 26 B. 337 and Cottingham v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1843) 3 Hare 62.