Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.79 seconds)The Amending Act, 1897
Section 3 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurbachan Singh vs Satpal Singh & Ors on 26 September, 1989
Still later this Court in Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh &
Others ( AIR 1990 SC 209) expressed in the similar vein as
regards the element of retrospectivity.
Section 8 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
Section 2 in The Amending Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh vs State Of Bombay (Now Gujarat) on 14 December, 1964
It is clear from the judgment in Civil Suit No.87/29 that
Mahadeos adoption was the point in dispute. Thus, it is also
clear that the question of Mahadeos adoption is the contention
in both the suits. Again we find that the other questions are
also common in that suit and in this suit the question of
adoption of present Defendant No.1 by Mohanlal, the question of
validity of the adoption deed, dated 9th December, 1923 and the
question of validity of the Kararnama, dated 10th December, 1923
were also directly or substantially in issue in the said suit.
This, in that suit the matter in controversy was decided after
full contest and after affording fair opportunity to the parties
to prove their case. Hence despite the fact that Betul Court was
not competent to try the suit before us the questions referred to
above which were decided in that suit would operate as res
judicata, by the general principles of res judicata, in view of
the observations of the Supreme Court. In that previous suit we
find that it has been decided that Mahadeo was not the adopted
son of Mohanlal and secondly, the Defendant No.1 Ramgopal was
adopted son of Mohanlal. Thirdly, the question the so-called
validity of adoption deed, dated 9th December, 1923 was decided
and it was decided that Kararnama, dated 10th December 1923 and
adoption deed were not binding on the Defendant No.1 who was the
plaintiff No.2 in that case. Hence all these questions cannot
now be agitated in the suit before us and the decisions on those
points would operate as res judicata. The civil Suit
No.157-A/1935 was filed by the Defendant No.1 Ramgopal, as stated
above, against Kisanibai and Radhabai and three others, now the
question is as to whether the decision in this Suit No.157-A/35
operates as res judicata. In that suit Radhabai was a party.
The issues were
(1) Whether the plaintiff (Defendant No.1in this suit) was
adopted by Mohanlal?