Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Duraichami Tevar vs Adimuthu Nadan And Anr. on 10 July, 1924 cites

Anakkaran Puthiavalappi Mussan Haji vs Thiyan Thavara Koran And Ors. on 28 April, 1921

It appears to me that this argument is not sound. The 2nd defendant's purchase of the hypotheca under Ex. III was long before the suit and it cannot be said that in that suit his interests were represented; the decision, therefore, cannot be considered to be binding on him. It is unnecessary to discuss this question in extenso as the matter has been dealt with in a series of decisions. One decision of the Madras High Court that I would refer to is that reported in Anakkaran Puthiavalappil Mussan Haji v. Thiyan Thavara Koran and Ors. (1921) 41 M.L.J. 392. There it was held that a lessee under a lease granted before a suit brought by or against his lessor is not bound by the decision therein against the latter if he (the lessee) was not himself a party to the suit. I think the principle of that decision applies to this case also.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1