Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
C. Ganapathi Mudaliar vs Krishnamachariar And Ors. on 17 February, 1914
The view taken in the above case was reaffirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the third case : Ganapatty Mudaliar v. Krishnamachariar (E), (supra).
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Merla Ramanna vs Nallaparaju And Others on 4 November, 1955
13. In my judgment, therefore, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure does require that the executing Court alone must determine all questions, arising between the parties, or their representatives, and, relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, and authorises it even to treat the proceedings as a suit. Therefore, when a sale in execution of a decree is impugned on the ground that it is not warranted by the terms thereof, that question could be agitated, when it arises between parties to the decree, only by an application under Section 47, and not in a separate suit : Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparajn, (S) AIR 1956 SC 87 (F).
Bindeswari Charan Singh vs Bageshwari Charan Singh on 18 November, 1935
23.It is now well established that a decision, even if wrong in a previous suit between the parties, is barred by res judicata, in a subsequent suit. Where the Court in a previous suit determined a particular point of law in a particular way a court in a new suit between the same parties with regard to the same transaction, or matter cannot try a new issue as to the point of law decided previously, even if it thinks the previous decision on that question of law to be wrong, in face of the express prohibition in Section 11 of the Code. This view was taken by the Judicial Committee in Bindeshwari Charan Singh v. Bageshwari Charan Singh, AIR 1936 PC 46 : 63 Ind App 53 (J).
Panchaiti Akhara Maha Nirvani vs Bindeshri Prasad And Ors. on 30 March, 1950
Mr. Saran has relied on Deonarain Singh v. Khatoon, AIR 1949 Pat 401 (K) and Panchaiti Akhara v. Bindeshri Prasad, AIR 1952 All 337 (L) in support of his contention that the decree for mesne profits having been obtained in presence of the plaintiffs and their father, the decree against the father, after the dismissal of the suit against the plaintiff could not be considered to be a decree against the father in a representative capacity and, therefore, in execution of the decree against the father the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs will not pass, and, the decree-holder cannot directly proceed against the interest of sons, and, he cannot indirectly do under "son's pious obligation" rule, what he cannot do directly.
1