Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.03 seconds)
Shri Ajit Chopra vs Sadhu Ram And Ors on 2 November, 1999 cites

Ramanand And Ors. vs Jai Ram And Ors. on 19 July, 1920

Where an earlier decree based on title for ejectment is not executed in time but a fresh suit is however filed on the same basis against the same defendant for ejectment relying on the earlier judgment, it has been held that a second suit does not lie. This is based on the principle that no second suit lies merely on the basis of an earlier judgment if the time for execution of the earlier decree has become barred. The cases relied up by the High Court in Ramanand and Ors. Vs. Jai Ram and Ors. ( AIR 1921 All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Bhaiya Raghunath Singh vs Musammat Hansraj Kunwar on 19 July, 1934

So far as mortgage cases are concerned, the position stood settled long back by the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh's case as explained in the Full Bench in Viroopakshan. In fact, this Court approved the Privy Council judgment in Raghunath Singh and held that a second suit for redemption was maintainable even if the earlier decree for redemption stood barred by limitation.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Cheria Veetil Madhavan Variar (Died) ... vs Chathu Nambiar Of Memenda Amsom Kizhal ... on 25 February, 1950

In that case too, the fresh suit was filed within 12 years from the date fixed in the earlier compromise decree. The possession during the period granted under the compromise was treated as permissive. A similar situation arose again in Madhavan Variar vs. Chathu Nambiar [1950 (2) MLJ 501] before Satyanarayana Rao and Viswanatha Sastri, JJ. They observed (p.504) that "as the cause of action in the present suit was different from the cause of action in the earlier suit, the decision in Mayan Kutti vs. Kunhammad, had no application". In our view, the decision in Kutti Ali and in Amina are directly in point and are correctly decided. Both relate to an earlier suit based on a lease when the execution of the decree was time barred and the second suit was based on title. The second suit was held neither barred by section 47 CPC nor by section 11 CPC.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mhadagonda Ramgonda Patil & Ors vs Shripal Balwant Rainade & Ors on 22 April, 1988

(see Mhadaagonda Ramgonda Patil and Ors. Vs. Shripal Balwant Rainade and Ors. [1988 (3) SCC 298], Maganlal Vs. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 344] and Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs. Guran Ditta Singh and Anr. [1991 (2) SCC 523]. We, accordingly hold on the above line of cases that the present suit is not barred by Section 11 or Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Maganlal Etc vs Jaiswal Industries Neemach & Ors on 7 August, 1989

(see Mhadaagonda Ramgonda Patil and Ors. Vs. Shripal Balwant Rainade and Ors. [1988 (3) SCC 298], Maganlal Vs. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 344] and Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs. Guran Ditta Singh and Anr. [1991 (2) SCC 523]. We, accordingly hold on the above line of cases that the present suit is not barred by Section 11 or Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 84 - N D Ojha - Full Document

Harbans Singh Etc vs Guran Ditta Singh Etc on 20 February, 1991

(see Mhadaagonda Ramgonda Patil and Ors. Vs. Shripal Balwant Rainade and Ors. [1988 (3) SCC 298], Maganlal Vs. Jaiswal Industries, Neemach and Ors. [1989 (4) SCC 344] and Harbans Singh and Anr. Vs. Guran Ditta Singh and Anr. [1991 (2) SCC 523]. We, accordingly hold on the above line of cases that the present suit is not barred by Section 11 or Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 10 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next