Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Hara Chandra Bairagi And Ors. vs Bepin Behary Das on 28 April, 1910
660 : 13 C.L.J. 1 : 15 C.W.N. 335 and Hara Chandra Bairagi v. Bipin Behary 6 Ind. Cas. 860 : 13 C.L.J. 38 conclusively establish that a decision in a suit for rent may operate as res judicata. In fact, if the contrary view were maintained and we found ourselves obliged to accede to the contention of the respondent, every suit for rent in which the defence of the tenant defendant has been overruled, would be followed by an action of the present description, namely, for a declaration that the tenant did not hold under the successful plaintiff but under a stranger to the litigation.
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Bidhumukhi Dasi vs Jitendra Nath Roy And Ors. on 31 August, 1909
The adjudication was by a Court of competent jurisdiction Bidhumukhi v. Jitendra 10 C.L.J. 527 : 4 Ind. Cas. 442.
Kasiswar Mukhopadhya vs Mohendra Nath Bhandari And Ors. on 14 July, 1897
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate how upon principle it can be seriously contended that this particular decision is not res judicata between the parties Kasiswar v. Mohendra 25 C. 136. In the present suit, the plaintiff does not allege that the relationship of landlord and tenant which was found to exist between the parties to that litigation has terminated since judgment was given in that case; consequently, it must be assumed that the relationship continues. It is clearly not open to the plaintiff to seek for a declaration that she is not the tenant of the first defendant. If she obtains such a declaration, its effect would be practically to nullify the decision given in the previous litigation.
1