Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Biswanath Das vs Debiprosad Paul And Anr. on 13 July, 1978 cites

Ramagya Prasad Gupta & Ors vs Murli Prasad on 3 April, 1972

In Ramagya Frasad v. Murli Prasad's case , the subject matter of the two suits was different. Hence, the decision in this case cannot be based on the principles enunciated in that decision. About the case of Narayan Prabhu , the test, if two inconsistent decrees would come into existence, has already been dealt with. In the case of Lonankutty , one side asserted that the flow of water and its discharge was necessary both for agriculture and for prawn breeding on the respondents' land. The respondents subsequently filed a counter suit asking for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with their prescriptive rights. So, the right of discharge of water was common to both the cases, and hence, that was the issue which directly and substantially arose in that decision. Hence, that case is also distinguishable. From the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted and I hold that the present appeal is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 64 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Basant Singh vs Janki Singh And Ors on 2 August, 1966

11. In this respect the law of non-traverse will clinch the issue. Rule 5 of Order 8 of the C. P. C. says that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not specifically denied in the written statement, shall be taken to be admitted except against a person under disability. Here, Biswanath is not a person under disability. In para 1 of the plaint filed by Umaprasad and Biswanath, there is a specific averment that they are the owners of the disputed shop. This averment of para 1 of the plaint was not denied in the written statement. On the contrary, the case in the written statement is that the defendant is a tenant of the shop room in question under Debiprasad and Umaprasad. Of course, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, laid emphasis on the point that admission in pleadings cannot be dissected and they must be considered as a whole. Reference may be made to the decision of Basant Singh v. Janki Singh in . In that Supreme Court case, Mr. Justice Bachawat explaining the decision of Beaumount J in AIR 1941' Bom 144 has stated that admission in plaint may be used in evidence against a party in other cases, but it is not conclusive. In the plaint of Biswanath's suit, there is a clear admission that Debiprasad and Umaprasad are the owners of the shop room in question. That admission is severable from the other admissions. This aspect of the case cannot be brushed aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 69 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1